Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Digital Broadcasting

David Hamilton: What recent discussions he has had with broadcasters on digital switchover in Scotland.

Rosemary McKenna: What recent discussions he has had with broadcasters in Scotland on digital switchover.

Frank Doran: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on digital switchover in Scotland.

David Cairns: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and I also meet representatives from the broadcasting sector from time to time. In addition, on Friday 27 October, I gave the keynote address at a major conference on digital switchover in Scotland.

David Hamilton: I have supported the BBC all through my life and I still support it and the licence fee system. However, in my constituency, which is a semi-rural area, the biggest single town in Midlothian, which has some 20,000 people, still cannot get digital transfer. It is not good enough to be told that they will get it in 2010, with whatever problems come at that time. Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC should be looking at the possibility of a rebate for people who cannot get digital transfer? They are getting a bit fed up with the advertisements, when digital is not available to them.

David Cairns: I well understand the frustrations of my hon. Friend's constituents. As he knows, a number of people in my constituency cannot even get an analogue signal, let alone a digital one, and it is frustrating for them. I well understand how they feel. At the moment, more than 80 per cent. of Scottish homes are able to receive a digital signal through their aerial. That figure will rise to about 98.5 per cent. at the time of digital switchover. We need to switch off the analogue transmitters in order for that number to rise to 98.5 per cent. I am afraid that I am not able to offer him the comfort that he seeks. Having raised this issue with the BBC on a number of occasions, I know that it feels that it has a duty to get to about 98.5 per cent. I hope that when coverage increases from 80 per cent. to 98.5 per cent., many of his constituents will be able to get that signal.

Rosemary McKenna: Although it is good news that all those people will be able to get digital coverage, my hon. Friend will be aware that there is grave concern about the ability of people to understand the system—particularly our elderly population. Does he agree that, come digital switchover, voluntary sector organisations, such as CACE—Cumbernauld action for care of the elderly—which works closely with the elderly, will be key in assisting the elderly population to operate and receive the system properly?

David Cairns: Yes, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I know that she has raised it during the deliberations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It is important that we provide a package of help for vulnerable people and older people. It will not just be older people who might need some support and technical assistance in switching over, but, particularly for those people, we need a help package that will give the assistance that they need. Digital UK is taking the lead on that. I know that it will want to work closely with the voluntary sector to ensure that those who are used to visiting older people in their homes, and have their trust and confidence, will be able to take the message on digital switchover to those vulnerable groups.

Frank Doran: My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) makes an important point about the condition of analogue systems at the moment. For example, people in a large part of the city of Aberdeen cannot get Channel 5. I was one of them. I recently bought a digital television. I have 20-odd other channels, but I still have not got Channel 5. If the Minister is going to make it worth while for people to invest in digital technology, we need to think about how we are going to get an improved service.

David Cairns: I am sure that, as long as my hon. Friend's constituents can access the Parliament Channel, they will sleep safely in their beds. He makes an important and valid point: people have chosen to switch to digital because of the opportunities that it gives them, the multi-channel service, and the availability of interactivity on the services. He will know from his time on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee that there is a major engineering exercise involved in turning off all the various transmitters that need to be fixed and so on. We need to make sure that that is done in a way that does not disadvantage people, that helps them to make the change over to the digital future, and that allows them to get rather more channels, including Channel 5, than he currently gets.

David Mundell: The Minister is, of course, aware that parts of Scotland will be the first in the United Kingdom to be part of the digital switchover. Will he make it clear to Digital UK that awareness of the switchover is, in itself, not sufficient and that the work with voluntary groups and community groups is vital? For many of those groups, face-to-face contact will be the only way to ensure that there is understanding and, more importantly, no fear of the changeover.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Awareness is key. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Hamilton) and I, he will have seen a lot of the adverts that are running to make people aware of the switchover. Awareness has risen from about 66 per cent. to 70 per cent. in just the last few months, as a result of the campaign. However, it is vital—particularly in borders, which will be the first region of the UK to switch over entirely at the end of 2008—that there is as high a level of awareness as possible. That is why Digital UK has taken a special interest in what is happening in borders. It is also paying close attention to what is happening in Scotland. It has dedicated staff working in Scotlandto raise awareness and achieve the result that he is looking for.

Michael Moore: I attended the conference that the Minister addressed and I pay tribute to the fact that he is taking a close personal interest in the subject. He will be aware that huge numbers of people in rural areas depend for their television signal on relay transmitters, rather than main transmitters. Under the current plans, many of them thus stand to get a second-tier service after switchover because they will receive only a fraction of the available channels. Does the Minister think that that is unfair? Will he ensure that Ofcom rethinks the proposals so that everyone can get an equal and fair service?

David Cairns: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the borders digital forum that he has set up to help to raise awareness. He was fortunate enough to hear my keynote speech at the major conference on digital switchover a week or two ago. I accept the point that he makes. As I understand it, there is essentially an engineering constraint—this is a major engineering project. However, Ofcom will have to keep the matter under consideration as we move through the process.

Act of Union

Angela Watkinson: What plans his Department has to mark the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union in 2007.

Douglas Alexander: We have already indicated our intention to mark this important anniversary. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcedon 15 June 2006, the Royal Mint will issue a commemorative coin. The Chancellor and I will launch the coin at a special event in January. Among other commemorative activities, I am pleased to know that plans are also being made to mount an exhibition in both the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.

Angela Watkinson: The Union of England and Scotland is one of the great success stories of modern European history and it has given us three centuries of stability. The £2 coin is welcome and I am pleased that there will be an exhibition. In a recent written response, the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that other events will be held. Will he elaborate on what local authorities and other institutions might be doing?

Douglas Alexander: Of course, it is up to local authorities to make judgments on such matters. We are in discussion with the Scottish Executive and I discussed the Westminster Parliament's response with the Leader of the House only yesterday. I rarely find myself in agreement with the views expressed by Conservative Members, but the Union is Scotland's mature choice. It has brought huge benefits not only to Scotland, but to England, so I am sure that we will both join in celebrating the success of, and future prospects for,the Union.

Ian Austin: Would not next year's anniversary be a wonderful opportunity to celebrate our Britishness and the shared values of democracy, equality, freedom, fairness and tolerance that bind this united country together? Given that people from all parts of the United Kingdom have worked and fought together for centuries, would not the anniversary be a great opportunity to reject once and for all divisive, anti-British and unpatriotic proposals to ban some MPs from voting in the House, which would tear up the British constitution and lead—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Douglas Alexander: I think that I got my hon. Friend's point. He speaks common sense when he recognises that a United Kingdom needs a united Parliament. Notwithstanding the sentiments expressed by some Opposition Members, now is not the time to play fast and loose with the British constitution in terms of maintaining the integrity of the House of Commons. I have some sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend. This Sunday, I will take my place at the Cenotaph to recognise the extent to which Scottish and English soldiers, together with soldiers from right across the United Kingdom, fought together to defeat fascism and then came back home and worked together to build a national health service. Those are huge achievements from the past century of the United Kingdom and I believe that we will have equally great successes in the coming century.

Alex Salmond: There will also be representatives of some 30 independent countries at the Cenotaph on Sunday.
	Amid all the street parties and mass celebrations that the Secretary of State expects for the Treaty of Union, will he ensure that there is a key role for the First Minister of Scotland, who appears to have been sidelined as a mere cipher by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's taking charge of the campaign? Has the Secretary of State noticed that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed control of the pro-Union campaign, support for Scottish independence has soared to an all-time high, while support for the Labour party has plummeted to an all-time low? Will the Secretary of State promise to keep on doing what he is doing?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are talking about an anniversary. Hon. Members' contributions are rather wide of the question.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman's talk of street parties reminds me of the image of him with the tartan army on top of a bus in Toulouse in 1998, which was the last time he claimed that Scotland was heading towards independence. The combined force of the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament and Labour at Westminster saw off that challenge. As we look ahead to the celebration of the Union, I am confident that the question that will dominate Scottish politics in the years to come will no longer be, "What is the point of Britain?", but, "What is the point of the Scottish National party?"

Charles Kennedy: I welcome the commemorative events for such a significant milestone. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given that it took almost three centuries to re-establish a Scottish Parliament, the time is ripe for mature evolution of our constitutional arrangements, but not pulling up the plant simply to see how the roots are developing? In that respect, what is his take on the suggestion that Jim Wallace floated in his Glasgow university lecture last week, reflecting on his time as Deputy First Minister in the coalition and on occasions as First Minister, that—leaving aside the argument about reform of the House of Lords—there could be an argument for the First Minister having a guaranteed place in the Lords to strengthen the links between the two Parliaments?

Douglas Alexander: I am aware of that debate and of the discussions that continue in Government and across both Houses on the reform of the House of Lords. I am sure consideration will be given to that suggestion, and to others. I place on record my admiration for the work of the right hon. Gentleman, in the constitutional convention that led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and as we move towards the 300th anniversary of the Union, and his close interest in constitutional matters. I know not whether it is to be transmitted by digital signal or analogue signal, but I understand that there will be an influential documentary on the history of the Union with which the right hon. Gentleman may have more than a passing familiarity, owing to his authorship and editorship of the programme in due course.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that my constituency shipyards have huge orders as a result of Scotland being part of the United Kingdom? Will he prevail on his colleague the Chancellor to make large numbers of the £2 coin available to me to distribute to my constituents in order to demonstrate the value of the British dividend?

Douglas Alexander: I fear that I must disappoint my hon. Friend by assuring him that prudence continues to have influence in the Treasury. On the substantive point that he makes about the significance of defence contracts to Scottish employment, that was of course one of the decisive arguments in Glasgow, Govan and elsewhere back in 1998. Since then, when one sees not only the frigates that have been built at Scotstoun, but the prospect of the Royal Navy securing aircraft carriers, it would be economic madness for any party to suggest that Scotland's interests were advanced by tearing itself out of the Union, when the manifest benefits of the Union are so clear to my hon. Friend's constituents.

Jo Swinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union presents an excellent opportunity to look afresh at our constitutional settlement, and that a calm, considered and well informed debate is needed to set a framework for further powers to be devolvedto Holyrood and to explore greater devolution in England?

Douglas Alexander: I have already acknowledged the constructive role that the Liberal Democrats played in the constitutional convention, which made proposals that the late, great John Smith described as
	"the settled will of the Scottish people"—
	the determination to see devolution in the United Kingdom. Echoing the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy), given that we are only eight years into a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, there is a case for continuing the progress that devolution has made. It provides the perfect balance between stability through the United Kingdom and the flexibility to address the challenges we have heard about during these questions—for example, the highest ever level of employment secured in Scotland.

David Mundell: I welcome much of what the Secretary of State said, and what the Prime Minister said yesterday about the enormous benefits to Scotland of being in the Union—similar comments to those that the Leader of the Opposition made when he was in Glasgow recently. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the celebrations focus not just on 300 years of success together, but on the future of the Union in the 21st century, working together?

Douglas Alexander: I sense that a sinner repents by endorsing devolution in the United Kingdom. I welcome at least the recognition by the Conservatives that devolution is now the settled will of the Scottish people, as well as the determination to take forward the debate about Scotland's place within the United Kingdom. I have little doubt that, over the months to come, whether on the basis of the anniversary of the Union or of the historic choice that Scotland faces next May, there will be a continued and vital discussion about the important contribution that Scotland can make to the Union over the next 300 years.

David Mundell: Conservative Members are clear on our commitment to make the devolved settlement work. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that support for the Union remains very strong in Scotland, and that the alleged rise in support for independence has nothing to do with a desire for further constitutional change but is the result of disillusionment with the Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive?

Douglas Alexander: It will come as no surprise that I am not convinced by the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Polls come and go, but the truth is that at every opportunity the Scottish people have rejected the politics of grudge and grievance and of separation and have recognised that Scotland's mature choice is to remain within the United Kingdom, which is why Scotland has sustained economic growth, high levels of employment, low interest rates and the prospect of further prosperity within the UK.

Local Income Tax

Anne Begg: When he last met the Chancellor to discuss the effects on the Scottish economy of an introduction of a local income tax.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Treasury colleagues to discuss a range of issues as they affect Scotland. As my hon. Friend knows, however, local taxes to fund local authority expenditure are devolved to the Scottish Executive.

Anne Begg: In his discussions with the Chancellor, will my hon. Friend stress that a large number of hard-working, two-income families in my constituency will be particularly badly hit by any move from a property-based tax to a local income tax, which is, surprisingly, the policy of the Scottish National party and of the Liberal Democrats?

David Cairns: I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's point is made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any discussions. The list of council tax band D figures in Scotland shows that her local authority in Aberdeen and mine in Inverclyde are well above the Scottish average; both, of course, are run by the Liberal Democrats, who have not only failed to keep the council tax under control but now want to clobber hard-working families with a huge hike in their income tax. It is no surprise that that policy is shared by the SNP, which simply would not be able to make the figures add up.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Minister promise to remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) of her words in a few years' time when she is complaining about the disastrous effect, especially on people of low and fixed income, of the revaluation that is inevitably coming? When he has his discussions with the Chancellor, will he discuss the effects on the Scottish housing market and, consequently, on the Scottish economy, of that revaluation when it comes?

David Cairns: When the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I thought that he was going to take the opportunity to apologise for the comments made by his colleague who said:
	"A fireman and a nurse are not the average family. They are a rich family that can afford to pay more."
	His party's local income tax policy is predicated on the belief that a nurse and a fireman are a rich family who should get clobbered more. That is why we will have no truck with a local income tax, which will clobber hard-working families. I would like the SNP to distance itself from it as well.

Mark Lazarowicz: An independent study in Edinburgh showed that the typical two-income household in my constituency would be at least £300 a year worse off through the introduction of local income tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a massive hike in income tax would have a damaging effect on the economic success in areas such as Edinburgh, and in the rest of the country, under this Government?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the economic strength in Scotland, where we have more people in work than ever before, where our employment rate is among the highest in Europe, and where we have steady growth and steady investment in schools, hospitals and other public services. Any attempt to clobber hard-working families with a local income tax, under which they would pay hundreds of pounds more, would be very damaging not only to those families but to the Scottish economy.

Economic Trends

Andrew Turner: What his most recent assessment is of economic trends in Scotland.

Douglas Alexander: Although there is no room for complacency, the Scottish economy is in a strong position, with economic growth exceeding the long-term trend and a higher employment rate than the UK and almost all other countries of the European Union.

Andrew Turner: Annualised economic growth in Scotland has fallen behind that for the whole of the UK in seven out of 10 last quarters, and that is forecast to continue. Why do the Government sound so complacent despite the Secretary of State's denials?

Douglas Alexander: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I should direct him to remarks made only yesterday by Tim Crawford, group economist at HBOS, who said:
	"The pace of Scottish economic growth is set to accelerate in the final quarter of 2006 and into 2007, mainly reflecting the improvement in business optimism over the past 6 months."
	Growth is, according to that forecast, accelerating, against a backdrop of Scottish unemployment at4.8 per cent., which is the lowest ever and below the rate for the G7, the eurozone and the EU15. Frankly, the Conservatives should do better.

Gavin Strang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent growth and low unemployment figures to which he refers derive from investment in both the private and public sector? Will he take this opportunity to debunk the argument that investment and more jobs in the public sector somehow crowd out the private sector?

Douglas Alexander: Yes, I am happy to take that opportunity. There is absolutely no evidence from the Scottish economy of the public sector squeezing out private investment. Indeed, growth in public sector investment, along with macro-economic stability over recent years, has been one of the critical success factors, bringing low interest rates, high levels of employment and steady growth. I believe that it is the rank prejudice of Conservative Members towards doctors, teachers, nurses, home helps and other vital public services that— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Danny Alexander: To what extent does the Secretary of State agree that the constitutional stability that Scotland enjoys within the United Kingdom has contributed to our excellent economic record of recent years? Does he agree that the years of constitutional turmoil that would follow any move to independence would be deeply damaging to Scotland's economic performance?

Douglas Alexander: This might be a first, but I find myself in full agreement with a Liberal Democrat. Of course, the serious point is that the UK's macro-economic performance over the past decade has been, as the OECD described it, a paragon of stability. Why would we wish to imperil that achievement by tearing up the macro-economic framework and, presumably, by establishing a Scottish pound, a separate set of Scottish accounting standards and a separate Scottish financial services agency? That seems quite beyond belief and is an idea that could be advanced only by a party bearing grudges and grievances rather than possessing a serious critique of what the Scottish economy needs.

John McFall: The Secretary of State will be aware that the shape of the Scottish economy has changed drastically over the years with financial services accounting for 8 per cent. of the whole economy and dwarfing the traditional industries of mining, shipbuilding and even whisky. Does he agree that an independent Bank of England and a single regulatory authority have served the interests of Scotland well and that the only guarantee of a prosperous Scotland is a vote for the Union?

Douglas Alexander: My right hon. Friend, in the light of his work in this place, speaks with real authority on these matters. Of course the Scottish financial community has been the fastest growing sector of the Scottish economy in recent years. Anyone who has worked closely with that community recognises the extent to which it is an export-based sector of the Scottish economy that relies dramatically on the ability to sell products on the market, and the largest single market is the rest of the UK. It would make no sense to make those markets foreign markets for Scotland.

Cross-border Health Issues

Peter Bone: Whether he has had recent discussions with the First Minister on cross-border health matters.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend regularly meets the First Minister to discuss a range of issues. Cross-border health issues are, however, primarily a matter for bilateral discussions between the Department of Health and the Scottish Executive.

Peter Bone: I am rather disappointed with the Minister's response. I would have thought that, with hospitals closing, nurses being sacked and thousands of people waiting longer than six months for NHS operations, health matters were a priority rather than something that is only slightly discussed.

David Cairns: I have a long list of statistics in front of me, which I shall not trouble the House by reading out, showing that there are more nurses, more doctors and more health workers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. They also show how the number of patients on waiting lists, which under the Conservatives ran into the thousands, are now only a few dozen. There are 300,000 more people working in the NHS today. The hon. Gentleman's party voted against every single penny piece of that investment, so it ill becomes Conservative Members to come to the House demanding more spending on the NHS, education and crime at the same time as going outside and promising £20 billion worth of tax cuts. That did not wash at the last election and it will not wash at the next one either.

Domestic Growth

Mr. Speaker: I call Question 7.

Douglas Alexander: With permission, I shall answer Questions 6 and 7 together.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) is not present, so Question 6 has not been called. However, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) is here, so I call Question 7.

Katy Clark: What assessment he has made of the most recent gross domestic product growth figures for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Douglas Alexander: As I have said, Scotland continues to benefit from the economic stability delivered by the Government, which is demonstrated by the recent gross domestic product data. I welcome those figures, which show output growth of 0.6 per cent. in the past quarter and 2.2 per cent. in the past year. That is above the long-term trend rate of growth for the Scottish economy.

Katy Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence that the growth figures go together with the highest number of people in employment in Scotland? Will he confirm that the Government will continue to have full employment as one of our most important objectives?

Douglas Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. When the late John Smith made the claim that full employment would again be at the centre of the Labour party's economic strategy, it was perceived as a bold, innovative and radical proposal. The fact that people now regard without surprise our extraordinarily successful employment record not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom is testimony to his wisdom and foresight when he said, almost 50 years after the Beveridge commission, that we should again place full employment at the centre of the Labour party's economic strategy.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Firefighters (Insurance Cover)

Chris McCafferty: Whether the conditions in the 2003 pay agreement in respect of insurance cover for firefighters attending a terrorist incident have been implemented; and if she will make a statement.

Angela Smith: The 2003 pay agreement did not contain any conditions for insurance cover for firefighters attending a terrorist incident. However, the dependants of a firefighter who dies from duty-related injury are entitled to a lump sum payment of up to seven times pensionable pay and enhancements to pensions for widows, widowers and civil partners. A firefighter injured on duty receives an ill-health pension and injury benefits of up to 85 per cent. of salary.

Chris McCafferty: Have there been any outcomes of the inter-departmental discussions on emergency service issues about terrorism exclusions in some personal insurance policies?

Angela Smith: Personal insurance policies are a matter for individuals. Discussions took place between Departments and information on the arrangements that we have established was communicated to all fire and rescue service personnel, including all firefighters. There has been no negative feedback and there are therefore currently no plans to take the matter further.

Julian Lewis: Given that firefighters, other emergency service workers and, indeed, members of the armed forces in support of the civil power may often work side by side in the same dangerous situations caused by terrorism, what contacts has the Department had with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that there is equity in the benefits that any of those brave people get if they are injured or—heaven forbid—killed?

Angela Smith: Regular and frequent discussions take place, but there is no equity between the arrangements. Indeed, the benefits paid to firefighters compare well with those for any other service.

Clive Betts: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that it is a time of considerable change for firefighters. Co-responding was one change that we believed was being introduced, whereby firefighters who reach a terrorist incident or an accident first can give some emergency medical treatment before the arrival of the ambulance or paramedics. Given the recent court case in Nottinghamshire, in which the judge effectively ruled that that was not part of firefighters' conditions of service, what are the Government doing to examine the matter, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that the people involved in incidents receive emergency treatment from the first qualified people to arrive on the scene?

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend highlights one specific case, but I can think of two or three authorities that are already involved in co-responding schemes. It is a matter for continuing discussion with the fire and rescue service. We perceive tremendous benefits to co-responding. Fire authorities that are currently engaged in it report back to us the benefits to the public of good engagement with other services.

Angela Watkinson: Fire and rescue personnel are often the first to enter a disaster scene, which makes them particularly vulnerable to secondary devices. Do not those special circumstances make them a special case?

Angela Smith: I am not sure what the hon. Lady is making a special case for. My hope is that we shall never have to use the compensation arrangements that we have in place for our firefighters. We have the best trainers and equipment in the world to ensure that their safety is as great as we can possibly make it. However, in those tragic incidents when firefighters are injured or lose their lives, compensation arrangements are in place for their families.

Local Government White Paper

Jamie Reed: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on their role in implementing aspects of the local government White Paper.

Ruth Kelly: I have had strong and active support from Cabinet colleagues in developing the policies in the local government White Paper. Across Government, we are committed to implementing the White Paper in full so that citizens get the full benefit of a Government focus on key priorities, greater local innovation and stronger leadership.

Jamie Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is only right that she should be commended for taking these issues forward on a cross-departmental basis. With regard to local government reorganisation in the county of Cumbria, and to the borough of Copeland, there are many issues that demand unique attention and special arrangements. Copeland hosts the Sellafield nuclear facility, and it is only just and equitable that future planning issues and powers relating to all aspects of the nuclear industry should reside with the people of Copeland, and not with the people of Kendal and Penrith—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be a question, and it must be brief. The Secretary of State will try to answer the hon. Gentleman—

Jamie Reed: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman has finished.

Ruth Kelly: If my hon. Friend is referring to the circumstances surrounding the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, I am sure that he will be aware thatmy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that such disposal represents a unique long-term challenge for us all, and that he would like to see voluntary arrangements in which local communities benefit as a result of agreeing the long-term disposal of the waste.

Patrick Cormack: Why is the right hon. Lady seeking to impose a form of authoritarian leadership on local authorities?

Ruth Kelly: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the proposals in the local government White Paper. It sets out three new relationships: a new relationship between central and local government; a new relationship between local government and its partners; and a new relationship between local government and the citizen. The desire is to reduce the number of targets from up to 1,200, and to concentrate on about 35. If we get that right—I am sure that we will, through the comprehensive spending review—local authorities will be freed to innovate locally, to be creative in responding to local challenges, to lead their areas in relation to the services that they deliver and to speak out for all services delivered. To me, that is equivalent to devolution and deregulation that will set up a new freedom for local government.

Sadiq Khan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper, a common thread of which is the wish to reduce central control and to give power to communities and citizens. In that regard, will she tell us more about the new performance framework, which strikes those of us who were previously local councillors and who are keen to ensure that local citizens have more rights than they have now as exciting and innovative?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend draws our attention to an important point in the White Paper. Because of the new framework, and the new relationship between central and local government, we will be able to reform the rolling system of inspection for each local government service and to replace the present comprehensive performance assessment with a proportionate, risk-based, comprehensive area assessment. The Local Government Association and other local government stakeholders have been calling for this reform for many years, and it should massively reduce the costs for local authorities and make it possible for them to lead their areas better.

Tim Farron: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in implementing the White Paper, there will be room to consider not only unitary options based on current district and county boundaries but the reinstatement of historic counties such as Westmorland and Cumberland?

Ruth Kelly: Of course we will consider any such proposals on their merits. There is a case for unitary authorities that can better lead their areas, but I do not want two-tier authorities across the country to be distracted for months—or, indeed, years—by the process of reorganising boundaries. That would distract them from their main job, which is to improve the quality of local services, and to increase prosperity for local citizens and respond to their concerns. An invitation to bid was sent out at the same time as the local government White Paper, setting forth the criteria against which any bid will be made. It makes it clear that the building block of any proposal should be the district councils, which should be the units around which proposals are based.

Jeff Ennis: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the White Paper has been generally well received by councillors in my constituency, but they have one genuine fear—that the White Paper will be used to reduce drastically the overall number of councillors nationally? Will she reassure me on that?

Ruth Kelly: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend on that point. I know how much he champions the cause of his constituency and local authority. Rightly, he believes that his local councillors are making a huge contribution to well-being in his area, and he wants to see a future for them. I assure him that our proposals are devolutionary, and that it will be for local areas to decide whether to move to single-member wards or, for example, to all-out elections.

Jacqui Lait: The White Paper calls for parish councils in London. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that will include powers to hike council tax via a parish precept? Is she aware that the average parish levy on band D is £30, and that it is more than £100 in some parts of the country? Is not it the case that Londoners now face a triple tax whammy—a parish council tax, a looming council tax revaluation, and a soaring bill for the Olympics because the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are at one another's throats?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Lady is not right at all. The White Paper would allow London the freedom that everywhere else in the country has to determine neighbourhood arrangements. If local people think that they are better served through parishes rather than, for example, neighbourhood forums, it would be for local people to feed that view to the local authority. The proposals are about making services responsive to local citizens' and community concerns. I hope that both sides of the House share the view that it is in everybody's interests to ensure that we meet citizens' rising expectations and tailor services to meet local needs.

Neil Turner: The recent White Paper confirms the Government's determination to tackle regional economic disparities. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Chancellor to ensure that the upcoming comprehensive spending review will continue the movement of resources towards those areas of the country with the greatest needs?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend knows well that the Government have increased resources to local authorities by 39 per cent. in real terms since 1997, as against a cut of 7 per cent. in real terms when the Conservative party was in power. The Government value local services and local provision, which is why our White Paper proposes a new local settlement. Just as important as the distribution of funding, however, is the flexibility of funding. While it is right that we always keep under review the appropriate balance between different local authority areas, it is also right that we give local areas the flexibility to manage the resources channelled to them. That is what the White Paper proposes.

Andrew Stunell: In the Secretary of State's discussions with the Chancellor, apart from listening to his grave concerns about city regions, will she take the opportunity to ensure that local government is given the right level of resources to deliver on the responsibilities imposed on them, week by week, by central Government? Will she assure the House that the local government settlement and the Chancellor's comprehensive spending review will reflect the needs of local communities for services from an independent, genuine local government?

Ruth Kelly: If the hon. Gentleman is calling for greater investment in public services, this Government are delivering that investment to local authorities. Through the local area agreement, we are giving local areas much more flexibility over how they use those resources. For example, £500 million is currently funnelled through local area agreements, which could rise in future to £4.7 billion. He is right, too, that if we impose new burdens on local authorities, they should be funded from central Government for that purpose. The Government are committed to that, as will be seen through the comprehensive spending review.

Celia Barlow: My local city council, after rejecting the idea of an elected mayor, is governed by an improved committee system. The upcoming White Paper includes three alternative leadership models, all of which, sadly, are incompatible with our current system. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be enough time and consultation for local authorities to implement any upcoming legislation?

Ruth Kelly: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is only right that we talk not just to the local authorities that will have to adopt one of the three new models, but to authorities that have a different model for particular local reasons. Specific discussions will take place with Brighton and Hove to ensure that the structure we expect it to adopt is welcome locally.

Empty Dwellings

Desmond Swayne: What her estimate is of the number of private homes that will be subject to an empty dwelling management order in the next 12 months.

Yvette Cooper: The legislation on empty dwelling management orders became fully effective in July. We expect only a small number of orders to be used in the next 12 months as part of local authorities' strategies to bring empty and abandoned homes back into use.

Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that it is better to use a carrot than a stick?

Yvette Cooper: I think that local authorities should be able to use a range of measures to deal with the problem of long-term empty homes, and so does the hon. Gentleman's local council. New Forest district council has said in response to our consultation that it
	"welcomes the introduction of Empty Dwelling Management Orders as a tool to ensure that empty property is returned to use...Our officers will continue to encourage owners to accept our help which should prevent the need to request an Empty Dwelling Management Order. However it will be extremely useful to have this tool in reserve."
	I agree.

David Kidney: I helped to persuade a former housing Minister—my distinguished and ever-popular right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill)—to make provision for empty dwelling management orders in the Housing Act 2004. Does my hon. Friend agree that while local authorities should not be over-hasty in seeking such orders, they should show some dispatch, not just because empty homes attract crime and antisocial behaviour and affect the value of neighbouring homes but, crucially, because the cost of refurbishing such houses and returning them to a decent condition rises very quickly, making the orders uneconomic?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The problem of empty homes can cause huge difficulties to local communities, particularly neighbours who may have to suffer all kinds of vandalism, crime or problems with squatters moving in when homes are empty for a long time. The councils that have done the most work in pursuing the strategies to which I referred often find that when they start proceedings, landlords introduce voluntary measures to bring homes back into use; so the strategies can be very effective.

Michael Gove: The Minister will be aware that there are 90,000 empty properties in the public sector. A procedure that can help to ensure that such properties are occupied is the public request ordering disposal, but a written answer from the Department reveals that the Government have turned down every single PROD application since they came to office. Whenever citizens have asked for homes in the public sector to be filled, the Government have said no. Can the Minister tell us why?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the circumstances in which those particular orders can be used are very limited. Each case must be decided on its merits.
	The number of public sector empty homes has fallen by 13 per cent. over the past two years, whereas the number of private sector empty homes—which account for 85 per cent. of the total—has not. That is why we have introduced powers to deal with private sector empty homes. The hon. Gentleman's party has opposed those powers, but they could make a huge difference to vulnerable families who must suffer as a result of neighbouring empty homes, which can cause a huge amount of blight among communities.

Andrew George: The Minister will know of a report that I forwarded to her recently. It refers to a survey of estate agents which showed that last year five times as many properties in my constituency were sold to second-home buyers as were sold to first-time buyers. We are, I hope, due to meet shortly to discuss the issues arising from that. What reassurance can the Minister give Members who represent constituencies where large numbers of second homes remain empty for most of the year while there is still massive demand for affordable homes?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are pressures on housing in all kinds of areas across the country. As he will know, the pressures caused by second homes are limited to certain areas where they cause significant problems. In a large range of areas, they cause no particular problems in the housing market. I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his concerns further, but we do not think it appropriate for second homes to be covered by empty dwelling management orders, which are designed to deal with very different circumstances.

Andrew Gwynne: Fantastic work is being done next door to my constituency by the regeneration company New East Manchester. However, many houses inside my constituency—particularly the older terraced stock—are now experiencing the same problems, with absentee private landlords and antisocial tenants. What discussions is my hon. Friend's Department having with local authorities such as Stockport and Tameside to ensure that the problems are not merely displaced but are tackled at source?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that addressing simply one aspect of a local housing problem will not be enough; we have to look at the local housing market as a whole, including the impact on neighbouring areas. We are working closely with local authorities across the country to support empty homes strategies and housing market renewal programmes where there are particular problems with low demand. I am happy to discuss the particular problems that my hon. Friend faces in his area.

Local Government White Paper

Anne Main: What impact she expects the proposals in the local government White Paper to have on the care provided by local authorities for the elderly.

Phil Woolas: The local government White Paper "Strong and Prosperous Communities" will support the delivery of high-quality public services to all citizens including, of course, the elderly. The White Paper will help local authorities and their partners to provide integrated customer-focused health and social care services to the elderly.

Anne Main: Older people have been left off the political agenda for too long, particularly with regard to funding for care at the end of their lives. Due to poor guidance from the DCLG, formerly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, local authorities can often interpret supporting people contracts in wildly different ways. Providers in the care home system tell me they need certainty and clarity. What will the Minister do in the future so that the Department gives clear and comprehensive guidance on this matter?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Lady answers a very important question. [Hon. Members: "Asks."] Asks, sorry; I am answering it. Actually, she has answered it. The need for stability in funding has been recognised by the move from a two-year period to a three-year period of funding settlement from April 2008 onwards. She will be aware of the strategy document that we published in July on the supporting people framework which addresses the very point that she quite rightly raises.

Bob Blizzard: May we have some basic standards laid down for local authorities to follow in their care for the elderly? Suffolk local authority's supporting people commissioning body is currently taking away funding for community alarm systems when all the indications are that these are a good value-for-money means of supporting people to follow the body's basic aim of preventing older and vulnerable people from getting into a bad way. I thought community alarm systems were part of the draft national strategy. Is not withdrawing them incompatible with the whole concept of supporting people?

Phil Woolas: The supporting people programme has helped some 814,000 elderly people and the provision of warden and alarm services is an important part of that. My hon. Friend will forgive me for not knowing the specific details that he raises, but there is consistent advice and guidance from my Department to local authorities.

Mark Pritchard: Have not the Government been unfortunately successful in setting local authorities against local health trusts? Too often local authorities are asking elderly people to sell their homes for social care rather than for health care. There is confusion at local government level. Would the Minister like to clear up that confusion?

Phil Woolas: Yes, I would. That is precisely why the White Paper builds on the successful policy of local area agreements, on which there is consensus across local government, to allow better joining-up so that different public agencies—the council, the primary care trust and other agencies—work towards the same objectives and goals and not against each other.

Caroline Spelman: The Association of Directors of Social Services puts the shortfall in funding for social care at £1.8 billion, and the Local Government Association reports that seven out of 10 councils are suffering from NHS cost-cutting pressures. Will the Minister now accept that there is a real crisis in social care and can he explain why this was completely overlooked in last week's White Paper?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Lady's comments sadden me, because she seems to fail to understand the difference between the need for health authorities to balance their books—which we all have to do in any walk of life—and the issue of cuts. Like local councils, the NHS has received extra funding year on year from this Government. Of course, that is not the same as the demands that are placed on councils, and I would be surprised if the Association of Directors of Social Services did not put forward demands for extra money, as it always has done. We listen to those demands carefully and work with the Local Government Association to identify cost pressures and, where possible, relieve them. The hon. Lady cannot paint a picture of reduced resources, as the opposite isthe case.

Local Government Finance

Matthew Taylor: What the average household council tax is in (a) England and (b) Cornwall.

Phil Woolas: The average council tax per dwelling in 2006-07 in England is £1,056, and in Cornwall it is £1,011.

Matthew Taylor: I am glad that the Minister has confirmed that council tax in Cornwall remains below the national average, but can he give some reassurance that any changes to council tax will not be made in such a way as to penalise areas such as our own, where house prices—especially because of the purchase of second homes—are way above the national average, but incomes are 25 per cent. below? It is rumoured that Ministers are considering a system that would penalise those areas that are seen as most popular or attractive. In some of those areas, incomes are very low and the local population is already penalised by the huge mortgages that they have to pay.

Phil Woolas: We are very much aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about Cornwall, which was also made earlier by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). I can reassure the hon. Gentlemen that the rumours amount to nothing more than scaremongering to try to frighten people on the basis of a misinterpretation of the Government's policy. Of course, our policy is to limit council tax increases through our capping policy.

Brian Iddon: Before the council tax bills go out next year, will my hon. Friend consider those on fixed incomes who just fail to qualify for benefits? Their real incomes are declining year on year.

Phil Woolas: I am glad that my hon. Friend reminds the House of the existence of council tax benefit. Just under 15 per cent. of council tax is paid by the benefits system to ensure that those who are least well off are not punished. He raises an important point about those just above the threshold and we have askedSir Michael Lyons to make recommendations in that area. I will bear in mind the point my hon. Friend makes on behalf of the people of Bolton, with whom I have had that conversation.

Islamist Extremism

Richard Benyon: If she will make a statement on her Department's work in combating Islamist extremism.

David Gauke: If she will make a statement on her Department's work in combating Islamist extremism.

Ruth Kelly: Tackling Islamist extremism has a cross-departmental focus. My Department is leading the Government's work on engaging with Muslim communities to acknowledge and tackle Islamist extremism at the grassroots. With an expanding network of Muslim partners, we are developing communities that condemn and isolate extremist activity.

Richard Benyon: In a blaze of publicity the Government set up the Muslim taskforce, which made 64 recommendations. Why have the Government implemented only three of them?

Ruth Kelly: That is a complete myth. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that following the attacks, the Government tried to engage with the Muslim community and set up a process called the preventing extremism together taskforce. Action has been agreed on all but three of the 27 recommendations that were addressed to Government. Indeed, the Government are taking forward action to develop forums against extremism across the country, have developed road shows for Islamic scholars in which 30,000 young people have already participated—the target is 100,000—and, together with the Muslim community, have promoted MINAB, the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Body, to regulate mosques and imams.

David Gauke: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her thoughtful speech on 11 October and her desire to develop relationships with a wider network of Muslim organisations. Does she share the concerns of many that the Muslim Council of Britain, in its refusal to participate in holocaust memorial day and its support for extremist ideologues such as Abul Ala Mawdudi, is not helping us to confront Islamist extremism but has instead helped to nurture it?

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The scale of the threat that we face, both in this country and globally, has increased substantially since 9/11, 7/7 and the terror plots of earlier this summer. It is right that we ask more of our partners in the Muslim community, and more of people of other faiths and none. We face a shared problem, and we need to show real leadership as we ask people to face up to the size of the challenge. They must speak out for our shared values and challenge extremism wherever they find it. I will work with any organisation that will challenge extremism and speak out in defence of our shared values.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) asked about holocaust memorial day. I said recently that I found it unusual and surprising that an organisation professing to support our common humanity and to defend our shared values would choose not to support holocaust memorial day. There are signs that the Muslim Council of Britain is beginning to rethink its approach, and I welcome that.

Shahid Malik: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will welcome today's conviction of Dhiren Barot for the heinous plot that he wanted to carry out in London, and that she will wish to congratulate the police and security services. In her magnificent keynote speech on 11 October, she talked about common values—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that these are very important matters, but the hon. Gentleman may put only a brief question to the Secretary of State. He has done that, and now the right hon. Lady will answer.

Ruth Kelly: I welcome the comments that my hon. Friend makes. The recent arrest and trial of the person to whom he refers illustrates the wider point that we in this country face a really severe threat. We must face up to the size of that threat, and continually strive to do more. We must accelerate our efforts to work with the Muslim and other communities, and we need to bring in wider partners to help us do that. We need to be clear about what are this country's non-negotiable values. Recently, I attempted to define them, but respect—for others, for life and for the rule of law—is at the heart of what British society stands for. It is also at the heart of the mainstream faiths, and it affects everything and everyone in our society today.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should all warmly welcome the life sentence that has been passed today, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) noted? The judge has made it clear that the person concerned must serve at least 40 years in prison. Should not that be a lesson and a warning to anyone who wants to bring terrorism and destruction to our country and our people?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have the appropriate security response to the threat that Muslims and non-Muslims in this country face. However, security responses alone are not sufficient, as we must also win the battle for hearts and minds that is the heart and essence of what we stand for. As a country, we must be prepared to welcome people of all faiths, and recognise the real and rich contribution that British Muslims make to our society. We must work with those who want to show leadership to make sure that all can benefit from a safe environment in the future.

Rural Payments Agency

David Miliband: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the single payment scheme administered by the Rural Payments Agency. The House will recall that in my written statements of 9 May and 5 July and in my oral statement of 22 June, I said that the well-rehearsed difficulties in the administration of the 2005 SPS would create challenges for delivery of the 2006 scheme, and I promised to keep the House informed of developments. On this occasion, as on every other, I would like to reiterate the apologies that I have offered already to farmers on behalf of my Department, and my commitment to remedy the problems.
	Today I can report progress with the 2005 scheme, and plans for the 2006 scheme. However, the interim chief executive of the RPA and I are clear that much more needs to be done to learn the right lessons from the National Audit Office's recent report and to build on the helpful guidance that I am sure we will see in the forthcoming reports from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Public Accounts Committee, the Office of Government Commerce and the Hunter review.
	As I mentioned in my written statement on 5 July, the total amount to be paid by the RPA for the 2005 scheme will not be known for certain until the last claim is completely validated and necessary corrections are made. However, the latest estimate at 3 November puts the figure at £1.528 billion, of which more than £1.516 billion—in other words, 99.2 per cent.—has now been paid. Some 110,244 claimants have received a full payment and a further 4,756 have received a partial payment and are awaiting their top-up.
	The combined total of 115,000 represents 98.5 per cent. of the revised estimated total claimant population entitled to a payment of 116,661. All but 50 of the claimants still awaiting any payment are currently calculated to have a claim value of less than €1,000. Those 50 are all difficult cases, involving issues such as probate or business liquidation, which would be challenging in any year. Dedicated teams are in place to deal with those cases, and the other outstanding payments, as soon as possible. Similarly, on hill farm allowance payments, some 95 per cent. of claimants have received a full or partial payment, and a dedicated team is exploring all avenues to make the outstanding payments as soon as possible.
	During October the RPA moved the bulk of its processing staff to detailed validation of the 2006 claims. Initial validation of those claims has been undertaken over the summer and has gone relatively smoothly. The same can be said of the 2006 round of eligibility inspections. However, the difficulties involved in completing the 2005 claim processing have inevitably impacted on the 2006 payment timetable. I am sure that everyone in the House wants claims paid in full assoon as possible. I understand that, and the new management of the RPA are dedicated to build stability and predictability into the system so that full claims are delivered in an efficient and timely way.
	However, the interim chief executive has reported to me that he cannot guarantee that the agency can deliver full payments within the payment window for the 2006 scheme. Neither he nor I believes that it is acceptable to expect farmers to wait until next June or beyond for payments. I have therefore agreed with the RPA a challenging formal performance target of paying 96.14 per cent. of valid 2006 claims by 30 June 2007, and it is determined to do all in its powers to deliver on that. However, in addition, I have also decided to pursue a partial payment plan.
	Our aims can be simply stated. First, we want to maximise the number of payments to farmers that arrive on a timely and predictable basis. That means making full payments where possible and partial payments where necessary. Secondly, we want to minimise the risk of late payment penalties and disallowance. Thirdly, we want our decisions this year to help the RPA to establish a new and sound footing for the delivery of the single payment scheme in the future. I have therefore agreed with the RPA that where full payments are not possible in the early part of next year, partial payments should start in mid-February for eligible claims above €1,000. The RPA estimates that the process will take around three weeks. Payments will be made for not less than 50 per cent. of claim value. This reflects the level that EU regulations permit without diverting significant resource away from, and therefore delaying work on, validating claims for full payments.
	Needless to say, I will be keeping the situation under close review, but the interim chief executive of the RPA has set out for me, and for Lord Rooker, the basis on which he is confident that partial payments can be made, and we believe, in part on the basis of the partial payments experience in May this year, that the money will be delivered.
	The single payment scheme and its administration has caused distress to farmers. The only way to make good on this year's problems is to improve the management of the system so that confidence is rebuilt. I have said clearly that this will not happen overnight, but I believe that the staged approach that I have set out is the only one that is prudent and responsible, and I commend it to the House.

James Paice: May I first remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests? I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for considerable prior sight of it, and for fulfilling his promise to make a statement in the autumn.
	We must not underestimate the extent of the problem faced by our rural communities. Any Member of the House who has any farming constituents must have real evidence of hardship in their farming communities. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in calls to the Rural Crisis Network; farm borrowings are up by £379 million in just one year; the RPA's extra administration costs were £46.5 million, which is more than two years' worth of hill farm allowance; and of course the Government have set aside £131 million for EU penalties.
	The statement was an opportunity for the Secretary of State to respond to the National Audit Office report, which found a huge number of errors in the calculation of entitlements. It is increasingly obvious that manyof them are human errors, such as incorrect data entry—no doubt a consequence of large numbers of temporary staff. The report found that the previous Secretary of State knew that the project was off course as long ago as June 2005, yet decided not to use the contingency plan but to plough blindly on. She eventually decided to use partial payments in April 2006, 15 months after I told her that they would be necessary.
	Whatever faults the previous chief executive must have, it is clear that no one person could be responsible for that catalogue of incompetence, but it appears that no one else is prepared to be accountable. Will the Secretary of State tell us what is being done to correct all the existing overpayments and underpayments, and when that exercise will be completed? When does he expect the remaining top-ups to be paid? He boasts that 95 per cent. of hill farm payments are being made, but that still leaves 700 of the most hard-pressed farmers without the payment. When will that process be completed? Will next year's hill farm allowance payment be delayed by the delay in the rural development programme?
	Most importantly, will the Secretary of State tell the House what the errors were that caused him to set aside that £131 million? Are they connected to the changes made in April to speed up the process, including the use of an area disregard? If he was not setting that money aside, would the cuts of £200 million to his budget still have been necessary?
	As for this year, any payment is better than nothing, but the admission that payments will not be completed in the window to the end of June next year is an admission of failure. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is money to which all farmers are entitled as a result of the ending of price support—a form of compensation? Rather than claiming to have set the agency a "challenging...performance target" of 96.14 per cent., will he admit that in fact that was the target set by the EU before penalties are levied?
	If farmers can be paid in full, we all welcome it, so can the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of his statement every farmer will have received a full or partial payment by mid-March? However, does he understand that what he is offering is in stark contrast to the position of farmers in Ireland or France, who are already being paid, and in Scotland and Wales, where payments will start in December? English farmers will yet again be disadvantaged by the Government. Why cannot partial payments be started in December? Why is the Secretary of State restricting the proportion to50 per cent.? What was wrong with the 80 per cent. used this year?
	For the third year running, fruit, vegetable and potato growers are planning their crops without having their authorisation. Will the RPA ever be able to give them the full and accurate information that they need to make their plans?
	It is easy for the Secretary of State to look at the issue dispassionately from a distance. Indeed, he constantly speaks of a "single planet"—but sometimes we think that that must be Mars. Farmers live in a real world: they have real bills to pay, and animals and families to keep. For many of them, this payment is their whole net income. Yes, of course, in time they will have to live without it, but they need time for transition. They have a Minister who sounded a lot better than his predecessor, but who, with this statement, has yet again let them down. I urge him, even now, to withdraw the statement: instead of being Scrooge, pay by Christmas day.

David Miliband: Let me go through the eight or nine points that the hon. Gentleman made. I am sure that we are completely united on two things. The first is that none of us underestimates the problems or hardships involved. Secondly, about a third of the way through his questions, he asked whether farmers were entitled to full payment. Of course they are entitled to full payment, and it is the Government's job to deliver it to them in an efficient and timely way.
	I fear that the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension about the £131 million referred to in the National Audit Office report; he suggested that it was somehow responsible for, or related to, cash cuts. We are using what is referred to, in Government budgeting, as a non-cash provision, which means that the Government are making allowance for future claims on the sum. It is designed to be a prudent provision, and it precedes the normal audit work done by the European Union. There has been no such demand for £131 million, and I do not think that it is in the interests of hon. Members on either side of the House to talk up the potential for penalties further down the road. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the £131 million referred to in the NAO report is not related to the £200 million deficit with which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why I described the96.14 per cent. target as challenging. I did so because the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency reported to me that there was no chance at all of the RPA's delivering full payments to all farmers by the date proposed. The hon. Gentleman is right that, as I have said on many occasions in the House, 96.14 per cent. is the minimum level below which late payment penalties are incurred. He asked about Ireland and France, and they, of course, are paying 50 per cent.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why we are not paying80 per cent. I referred in my statement to the importance of the EU regulations on the subject. He will know that over the past 10 or 15 years, hon. Members on both sides of the House have thought it important that the EU should have proper regulation for the disbursement of EU moneys, especially in relation to the common agricultural policy; we have been arguing for that. I am sure that he does not want to query the provision of that level of rigour.
	The reason for specifying 80 per cent. this year is that when the Agriculture Council discussed the issue in 2003, and considered the first year of the new scheme, which is 2005, the Commission said clearly that it would regard 2005 a transitional, exceptional year—a year in which it would be flexible about how partial payments were made. We used that flexibility to deal with the circumstances that arose last May, which all of us wish had not come about. The reason for the 50 per cent. target is that that reflects the EU regulations, to which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House are committed.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about starting the payments in mid-February. The advice from the RPA is that it will take the agency about three weeks to deliver all the payments. He asked whether mid-February plus three weeks means payment by mid-March at the latest; that is a calculation that I and others can make, and we are happy to confirm that that is the advice from the RPA.
	Finally, I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing in my statement was meant as a "boast" about the performance of the RPA or the Department, and I would certainly be surprised if that is how it came over. The blow to farmers has, of course, been the most serious result of the failures of the RPA, but there is also the blow to the reputation of the Department, and it is very important to put things right as effectively as possible. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that farmers have said to me, time and again, that the most important thing about this scheme year—the 2006 scheme year—is that they are not given promises that are not delivered on. That is why I put such stress on timeliness, and on the confidence of the RPA's chief executive; when he says that partial payments can be delivered in February, he knows that they can. I hope that farmers will recognise that it is right that we should proceed step by step, secure in the knowledge that each step is a safe step. That is better than raising their hopes only to dash them later.

Christopher Huhne: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of a partial payment plan for 2006. I recognise that it may be unrealistic to expect to deal with 80 per cent. of payments by Christmas, but it is clear that if only50 per cent. of payments are made by mid-February, that will be a real, continuing blow to the farming community. Will he pledge to do everything possible to ensure that the Rural Payments Agency treats the target as a minimum threshold, rather than a glass ceiling? Given that such late payments will againcause enormous cash-flow problems—they totalled£23 million last year—will the Secretary of State use his good offices with the banks to ensure that farmers' credit needs are accommodated? Will he pledge, too, to ensure that provision for rural stress networks is more than adequate?
	Will the Secretary of State assure us, in the light of his announcement that 5 per cent. of hill farmers have yet to receive this year's hill farm allowance, that next year's hill farm allowance claims will be processed separately from the single payment scheme, so that it is not delayed again? In his update on the 2005 scheme, the Secretary of State did not update the House on his discussions of disallowed expenditure with the EU, so will he do so now? We very much regret the formal announcement, although we are not surprised that there is no guarantee to meet the payment window in June 2007. Will he assure us that if there is any European Commission disallowance for the 2006 scheme, the cost overruns will be met from contingency funds, and will not result in cuts to the core DEFRA budget, such as crazy cuts to flood defence and animal disease prevention budgets?
	Will the Secretary of State say whether Johnston McNeill, the former chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, remains on full pay, and when that extraordinary situation is likely to end? He will be aware, following the written answer from his Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that appears in column 705W of  Hansard today, that DEFRA has paid £4,296,268 in annual performance bonuses in the current financial year. That represents an increase of 27 per cent. on the previous year. Does he believe that his Department's performance has improved by 27 per cent. in that period? What signal does that send the farming community? Will he reassure the House that none of that performance money has been paid to those responsible for one of the biggest bureaucratic bungles ever to afflict rural Britain?

David Miliband: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support—perhaps "understanding" is a better word —for our decision about the 50 per cent. I can certainly confirm that 50 per cent. is the minimum threshold. As I said in my statement, the RPA will pursue full payment where possible and partial payment where necessary, with a 50 per cent. minimum payment. The relationship between the banks, farmers and the farmers' representatives is well developed, but I will certainly check that that is the case. It has not been suggested to me that the banks need the heavy hand of Government to help them, as good systems are in place.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the investment in stress networks—£300,000, I think—is well made, and we will keep that under review. I addressed the hill farmers' allowance in my previous statement, when I said that it would continue to be paid separately for 2006, and I addressed the issue of disallowance in reply to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). The European Commission has not suggested levels of disallowance—it has not suggested any disallowance yet, having just begun the auditing process. The Government and the Department have acted at every stage to balance interests and discharge their responsibilities to the EU as well as to farmers. As I said, it is not in anyone's interest to suggest otherwise, for obvious reasons.
	As for Johnston McNeill, the matter was addressed at length by the permanent secretary in her recent Select Committee appearance, and has been dealt with according to civil service procedures. An offer has been made to Mr. McNeill, and we await his reply. As for performance bonuses, I understand that they were given to front-line staff who were largely responsible for disbursing, for example, partial payments in May, in circumstances that none of us would have chosen. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want those people on the front line to be tarred with the brush of incompetence, as they worked hard to deliver those payments.

Eric Martlew: I welcome thefact that things will be more certain in future, as without doubt my farmers have suffered over the past 12 months. May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the work force at Edenbridge house, where 400 of my constituents are employed by the Rural Payments Agency on the front line? They work hard, and have changed their shift patterns—it was terrible that the Lib Dems denigrated what they have done—so will my right hon. Friend put it on record that it is not their fault that the system has not worked? Will he put his appreciation on record as well?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with authority and experience in this area, and I am certainly happy to extend my thanks to the hard-working staff in his constituency. It is an old rule that soldiers should never be blamed for the mistakes of their generals, and I am happy to affirm that principle today.

Michael Jack: The National Audit Office report counsels us that during 2004 and 2005 Ministers found it difficult to have objective and knowledgeable information with which to assess progress in respect of RPA performance. That was because senior officials from the Minister's Department were, effectively, in bed with the RPA trying to run the payment scheme. What steps is the Minister now taking to ensure that he has knowledgeable and objective advice by which to assess information that comes from the RPA?

David Miliband: I do not know about any bedding arrangements—or arrangements in bed, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it—in previous years. We have the benefit of independent work, not least by Select Committees of this House, and we have the independent expertise of the Office of Government Commerce and the independent review by the Hunter committee. No one could say that the RPA is lacking independent scrutiny at present. We are determined to learn from all of those reviews.

Charlotte Atkins: I wish to ask the Secretary of State about the possibility of bailing out the RPA, so that the impact on British Waterways and the dire consequences for canals, such as the Caldon canal, in my constituency, can be minimised. Many of my constituents cannot understand why the British Waterways grants have to suffer as a result of the problems of the RPA.

David Miliband: I share my hon. Friend's passion for the good work of the British Waterways Board. However, I must address two aspects of her comments. First, the idea that the £200 million of deficit that I was presented with just before the summer holidays arises solely from the RPA is quite wrong; that is responsible for about £25 million of the problem. Accounting changes are responsible for £65 million, avian influenza for £15 million, and pressures from previous years, including for flood investment, are responsible for£70 million to £80 million. So we are not talking about cutting the waterways because of the RPA.
	Secondly, as my hon. Friend knows, there has been a reduction in the British Waterways budget of about £3.9 million—against a budget of, at my last count,£59 million. That is regrettable, but the budgets for British Waterways and other DEFRA delivery bodies have gone up by many times over the past nine years.
	That money has been very well spent by the British Waterways Board. In fact, I think I am right in saying that its private investment is now well in excess of its public investment. Its total budget is now, I think, about £190 million. It is a successful organisation, and we are determined to support it. Of course I regret the difficulties that have arisen, but they should not obscure either the good work of British Waterways or the good work of my predecessors in investing in its good offices.

Nicholas Winterton: I wish to associate myself with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), because of the Macclesfield canal, which is a very important facility in my constituency. I also have a simple question for the Secretary of State. This complete debacle with the RPA has caused irreparable damage to United Kingdom farming. Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell the House today what reparation he is prepared to give to farmers to regenerate an industry essential to this country—United Kingdom farming?

David Miliband: I completely share the hon. Gentleman's passion and support for British farming. I do not have the benefit of the expertise and experience in this issue that he has gathered over many years. I listened to him use the word "irreparable" in respect of the damage. I would not describe it as that; I would describe it as damage, but I do not believe that it is irreparable.
	The best way to make reparation is to have an RPA and a single farm payment scheme that work in an effective, timely and efficient way, and that is what I am determined to deliver. Farmers have a right to expect that money from the European Union will be disbursed to them in an efficient and predictable way. That is, I think, the best way in which I can give them the confidence that they need.

Janet Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend look into the case—I have already raised it with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner)—of a farmer in my constituency who has been paid a considerable sum in subsidy that he was not entitled to claim? Will he give me an assurance that action will now be taken to recover this money?

David Miliband: I gather from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that my hon. Friend has indeed raised this issue with him, and we are certainly looking at all such cases. I can assure the House that although final figures are not yet available, overpayments are in the single million figure. That is obviously higher than anyone would want it to be, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will pursue all such claims very carefully and rigorously.

Roger Williams: Yesterday in my office, I met Mr. Parry from Bleddfa, in my constituency, who has received none of his English single farm payment and only a small amount of his Welsh one. We are talking about a considerable sum, so I have difficulty in reconciling the Secretary of State's figure of only 50 farmers who have not received payments of more than €1,000. Will he intervene with the RPA and ensure that there are still enough staff dedicated to dealing with the 2005 payments, so that cross-border farmers, those who are having difficulty with common land applications, and particularly hill farmers—5 per cent. of the latter have received none of their payments, and a number have received only partial payments—get the payments as quickly as possible?

David Miliband: We will ensure, and the RPA is ensuring, that there are sufficient staff to pursue that issue. If the hon. Gentleman contacts my office with the name of his constituent, I will pass it on to the RPA and make sure that a proper process is in place.

David Taylor: The Government are rightly straining every sinew on behalf of the 115,000 families affected by the Farepak collapse, who have lost £300 to £400 each. Indeed, 115,000 farmers are losing an average of £13,000 to £14,000, or waiting for delayed payments. Can the Secretary of State assure me that, before I go the local branch of the National Farmers Union, which represents scores of farming families, he will do everything that he can to identify the most needy claims, and not prioritise and focus on agribusiness, which does not need the money?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend has spoken many times in the House about this issue. While I would say that all farmers need the money, I agree with him that it is important that there is a suitable prioritisation process. In my statement, I referred to the €1,000 limit that we will establish. That is a form of prioritisation, but I certainly take the point that my hon. Friend makes and I can reassure him that we will not deal with the biggest claims first and work our way down the system. The RPA will try to identify claims in an appropriate and sensible way.

David Curry: Given that the Department cancelled the installation of software that would have given it reliable management information about what was happening at the RPA, and given the number of false dawns that we have already had, how certain is the Secretary of State that the assurances that the agency has now given him are bankable, particularly bearing in mind the huge administrative task that it now faces? A second overhang of payments has been added to the first, and it is possible that a significant number of the payments already made are not accurate.

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman asks a question of me that I have obviously asked myself before coming to the House to make this statement. The best way to answer him is to say that both the chief executive of the RPA and I will use the words "bankable" or "certainty" when the money is in farmers' bank accounts. Equally, my judgment, the affirmation that I have given and the clear timetable that I have set out today—I referred to the middle of February and the three weeks thereafter—is based on one thing that we do know from last year, which is that, once the button is pushed to deliver partial payments, it can be done. The chief executive of the RPA has given Lord Rooker and me a clear explanation of how that can and will be done. I am impressed by the way in which he has gone about his job since his appointment in July. He is bringing a rigorous and conservative approach to the issue. He is certainly not making excessive or wild claims. He is determined to make sure that his delivery keeps up with his promises and I am impressed by his work so far.

Jim Cousins: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the Rural Payments Agency attempted to solve its problems by hiring agency workers, who were drawn into the processing centres from all parts of England, on a mass basis? Does he acknowledge that more than half the workers at the processing centre in Newcastle were agency workers employed on a short-term basis? That happened for a long time. That is no way to go on. Many hundreds of my constituents would love to have a proper job on a proper basis providing proper service to him and to the farmers of England.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have not got the precise figure for the distribution of employment at the Newcastle office, but his basic point is good. That is certainly one of the issues being considered by Tony Cooper, the chief executive, in his moves to get the RPA into good shape.

Roger Gale: My understanding is that there are some 9,000 claims pending and several thousand outstanding 2005 queries that still have yet to be addressed. As the Minister said, those are impacting on the current year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, that is causing an overlap of yet another year. Hundreds of farmers in the south-east and their families are facing a miserable Christmas as a result. In his statement, the Minister said that payments would be made for not less than50 per cent. of claim value, but in every answer that he has given since, it has become immediately apparent that that means not more than 50 per cent. either. If farmers in my constituency, and others in the south-east, have to wait until mid-February, why cannot the figure be 80 per cent.?

David Miliband: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has interpreted my answer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) in that way. The hon. Member for Eastleigh asked whether 50 per cent. was the maximum or the minimum and I thought that I gave a pretty clear answer that it was the minimum. Full payments are being pursued and the final level of payment obviously depends on the second level of validation that is done. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked about the 80 per cent. for last year. I tried to address that earlier. The European Commission was clear that the first year of the new single payment scheme was exceptional and would be regarded as such. That was included in the discussion in the European Council in 2003. That gave us latitude that we do not have in the same sort of way this year. We have tried—I think that this would have support on both sides of the House—to work within European regulations that we have argued for long and hard, from Governments of all complexions, to try to ensure that payments under the common agricultural policy around Europe are made in a regular and appropriate way. That is the basis on which we have made the decision that we have today.

David Drew: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has to say, but will he look again at the idea of de minimis payments, given that there are clearly some anomalies in who receives payment? Will he look again at who is entitled to the single farm payment? This is a farm payment and yet it goes to many people who are clearly not farmers and add little to the land. Will he accept that it would be completely wrong to make any payment to the EU until and unless it reforms its agricultural system? That is rubbing our nose in it, when we should be rubbing the EU's nose in it.

David Miliband: I am not going to get into nose rubbing. The point about de minimis payments is interesting. That is not allowed under the current regulations. My hon. Friend will know that about 30,000 to 40,000 of the 120,000 or 115,000 claims are for relatively small sums. We will certainly explore that as we proceed.

Andrew George: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), and in the spirit of wishing to be constructive and to look forward, rather than back, will the Secretary of State be prepared to consider the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and thus ensure that the payments go to full-time farmers with small, family farms who receive the majority of their income from farming, but have experienced serious problems and additional marginality because of a lack of adequate cash flow? Will the Secretary of State be prepared to ensure that those farms are the first priority and make sure that there is not only a floor, but a ceiling, for the priority on which the RPA concentrates?

David Miliband: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the serious and constructive tone and content of his question. I know that he speaks about the matter with the interests of his constituents at heart. Since May, I have learned that it is unwise of politicians to make arbitrary judgments about levels of payments. The €1,000 minimum that I chose was based on close consultation with the chief executive of the RPA about the way to maximise resources and the impact of the work of the RPA's staff. I do not want to set an arbitrary maximum because there will be hard cases on all sides.
	I have also learned that one should proceed with great care when making changes that have an impact on the RPA's operating procedures. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman says and discuss it with the chief executive of the RPA. However, I want the chief executive to make management judgments about the best way forward for the delivery of the scheme, and I think that that is the best way to serve the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Paul Flynn: The Minister appeared to link directly the chaos in the RPA with the cuts in the payments to British Waterways to the extent of £25 million. Why is that? Does it not put at risk the great work that has been done to revitalise the canal system in Britain, and especially the work done on the flight of 14 locks in Newport, which is developing into a fine tourist attraction?

David Miliband: I am sorry that my earlier answer was so unclear. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), I tried to explain that 10 per cent. of the financial difficulties faced by the Department was the responsibility of the RPA, not 100 per cent. My hon. Friend makes a passionate defence of the work of British Waterways—I share his sentiments—but let us not forget that there has been £40 million of investment over the past nine years to clear the backlog that was left when we came into office. There has also been£30 million of additional investment on top of that. The £3.9 million reduction that we have had to make is deeply regrettable and it means that important work by British Waterways will not go ahead. However, let us not fall for the fallacy that that means that no work will be done by British Waterways, or that all its good work will be eliminated. There are £3.9 million of cuts, but more than £50 million of Government grant a year. There is a budget of £190 million, and there has been more than £70 million of new investment over the past nine years. That record is a good one on which to build. Our responsibility in the Department is to ensure that its finances are managed in such a way that it is able to support good organisations such as British Waterways.

Douglas Hogg: Given that the RPA cannot make full payments before 30 June 2007, it would clearly be churlish not to welcome the partial payments. However, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be fairer still if he would agree to pay interest on the balance of the payments that cannot be made before 30 June, but will be paid after the window closes?

David Miliband: I think that I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly, but I will be happy to write to him, or he can write to me. If he is saying that the Government will have to consider next year whether to pay interest on payments that are not made during the window period, he is raising a wholly legitimate point. The Government faced that situation this year and have paid interest on the payments made outside the window. Although I cannot make a commitment today, he raises a perfectly legitimate point if he is saying that if—I underline that word—next June, there are payments that have not been made in the window, we must consider Government practice on the matter, given that there is an established precedent. However, at the moment, all my energies are focused on making sure that the payments are made.

John Hayes: We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman inherited much of the present debacle from his subsequently promoted predecessor. Nevertheless, in the light of the National Audit Office report, the House was entitled to expect that the right hon. Gentleman might do more about the fundamental problems, particularly of personnel and management, that led us to where we are. Will he at least give a firm and binding assurance to the House that the methodology for establishing entitlement—that is, the mapping—is robust? Unless he can do so, farmers in Lincolnshire and elsewhere will worry that the problems will continue year on year.

David Miliband: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, there are a number of reports in preparation, including from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and we want to learn the lessons of all of them. To borrow a word from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), it is a little churlish of him to say that I have not made a statement about the NAO report, when the priority for farmers was to know their financial position for next year. The hon. Gentleman's second question was about mapping. Of course we want the mapping to be as robust as possible in Lincolnshire, as in the rest of the country.

Edward Garnier: From the remarks that he made in his opening statement, the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that several thousand people have still not been paid either fully or at all for 2005, and it seems that several thousand will not have been fully paid by June 2007. A number of those are in my constituency. Will he recognise, as I am sure he personally does, and will he encourage those in the RPA to recognise, that this is not just a financial or a statistical issue, but a human problem? Those are farmers with families to feed and tax bills to pay, so the matter requires his personal attention. I believe him to be a man of good will and I trust that he will be encouraged by the partial support, at least, that he has had from Opposition Members.

David Miliband: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his support for the actions that I outlined today. I entirely understand his point that the problem is a human one, not just a problem of calculating machines or computers. If I can give him a glimmer of hope, I can say that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has made it clear that it will look carefully and sympathetically at the situation to which he alluded—that people should be paying tax on money that they have not received. HMRC has been clear that it will consider that. The first meeting that I had as Secretary of State was about the RPA, for the simple reason that it is the most important thing that has to be sorted out, and I continue to have monthly meetings about it. My colleague, Lord Rooker, has weekly meetings both with the RPA and with a wide range of farming and other organisations. It is essential that we get the matter sorted out. We must not promise a false dawn. That is why I said in my statement today that it is a step by step process to rebuild confidence. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken that. Let us take those steps and make sure that they are carried out competently, and ally competence to the good will of which he speaks.

Peter Luff: In answer to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), the Secretary of State feared that he might have been unclear. He was not unclear; he was unpersuasive. Why are the problems of the worst Government policy and administrative failure for many years being visited not just on the long-suffering English farmer, but on a range of other bodies which have the bad fortune to fall within the purview of his Department? Did he ever ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for help for a contingency fund for organisations such as British Waterways?

David Miliband: The discussions that I have with the Chancellor should probably remain as collegial and internal discussions.  [Interruption.] That is certainly the way that I would prefer it. Let me address the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am a member of the Government and I support the Government's economic strategy. Central to that economic strategy is the control of public expenditure, and central to the effective control of public expenditure is the principle that Government Departments take responsibility for the funds that are at their disposal. We have moved to three-yearly budgets, for which there is support in many parts of the House. The important thing is that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, Government Departments work hard to live within those budgets. At a time when we have a comprehensive spending review ahead, we will be able to address in the round the issues of DEFRA's budget. My judgment is that one cannot support the Government's economic strategy on the one hand, and on the other, go running to the Chancellor for funds every time there is a problem.It is about being a responsible Government andalso a collegiate Government who recognise our collective responsibilities, as well as our individual responsibilities.

Owen Paterson: My constituent, Mr. Colin Evans, of Bartie farm, Dudleston, farms 580 acres, half in Wales and half in Shropshire, very efficiently. The incompetence of what he has been through in not receiving a payment by the end of August is exemplified by the fact that it took two weeks to inspect one of his farms, the process not being accelerated by the inspector's going to sleep one day in the corner of one of his fields. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that there is competent co-ordination between the Welsh authorities and the English authorities so that constituents such as mine with holdings on both sides of the border are not penalised?  [ Interruption. ]

David Miliband: I did not hear what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said from a sedentary position, but it involved the word "exhaustion". I do not know whether he was referring to me or to the RPA inspectors.
	The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) raises an important point. Farmers' land plots do not recognise some of the geographical lines that exist in our United Kingdom. I will find out for him the nature of the discussions that take place between the RPA and the Welsh authorities. The Welsh authorities are taking an historical approach based on early-1990s payments. For reasons that we can go over another time, the English authorities are not taking that approach. I will drop the hon. Gentleman a line, if I may, about how the English and Welsh authorities are co-ordinating their activities.

Nigel Evans: The Minister said that he does not believe that the damage being done to farming is irreparable, but it is certainly recurring, and there are only so many punches that British farming can take before it is completely knocked out of business. I was delighted that he told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that he will consider interest payments for those farmers who get themselves further into financial difficulties, through no fault of their own, because they have not been given full payment. Will he also consider actual costs to farmers, particularly if they have to pay arrangement fees and commercial rates of interest? Finally, can he reassure us that this will be the last time that he will feel it necessary to come to the House to make such a statement?

David Miliband: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, it would not be appropriate for me to say that I will not keep the House informed. I have made two written statements and two oral statements. When I first joined the Cabinet, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave me this advice: "If you've got difficulties or problems in your Department, make sure that you're open and honest with the House of Commons about it." I think that it is right to come to the Floor of the House to report on progress, notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, your right to say that you are tiring of my voice and my appearances here.
	The hon. Gentleman speaks in a dedicated way for the farmers in his constituency and elsewhere. He is right that there are difficulties in British farming—or in English farming, which is my responsibility—but I hope that he will reflect on the following point. When the Bank of England published last week its latest figures on the finances of the farming industry, the National Farmers Union put out a press release saying, "Let's recognise the strong financial performance of many parts of British farming shown in this report." It did not say, "Let's thank the Government for the strong performance of many parts of British farming", but "Farmers deserve credit for the way they are innovating and working and winning market share both at home and abroad." I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is in none of our interests to cover over the problems that exist, but equally we must not talk down the many successes in British farming.

Geoffrey Cox: Surely we should start from the premise that this is not the Government's money but farmers' money, and it is the Government's duty to get as much of it as possible to them as quickly as possible. The Minister has said that there is nothing in the regulation that prevents more than 50 per cent. from being awarded as an interim payment. Can he tell the House what will be the target amount for farmers' interim payments and what criteria will affect the decision on their quantum?

David Miliband: It is obviously taxpayers' money that is paid to farmers on the basis of their historic payment and their acreage. I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further details of the EU rules. I have said that a minimum of 50 per cent. should be paid and that the EU rules require a high level of validation before partial payments can be made. There are then specific limits on what proportion of the payment claim can be made. I have been clear in stating that we will not pay less than 50 per cent. and that every partial payment must, in accord with the EU rules, be at least that. As I said, I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detailed information about the precise way in which those rules operate.

Robert Goodwill: I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. No doubt the Secretary of State is a reader of the  Yorkshire Post and is aware of its campaign for interim payments to be made by the end of the year, rather than February, as announced today. Farmers in the Republic of Ireland have not only received interim payments already, but expect full payment by the end of the year. Does not the Secretary of State realise that farmers, particularly hill farmers in north Yorkshire, also have to buy Christmas presents for their kids?

David Miliband: Of course I recognise that. I said in my statement that we sought to balance a variety of factors: first, getting timely and efficient payments to farmers; secondly, minimising the risk of late payment or disallowance; and, thirdly, getting the Rural Payments Agency on to a stable footing. I would have thought that those three factors would be acknowledged throughout the House. Frankly, a December payment cannot be justified on that basis, and February—three months earlier than this year's payments—strikes the right balance. I have tried to explain clearly the basis on which that date was chosen.

Philip Hollobone: Farmers in the Kettering constituency and across Northamptonshire will be bitterly disappointed at the ongoing problems with the Rural Payments Agency. Can the Secretary of State offer any assurance that minor changes in applications will not lead to disproportionate delays in receipt of payments?

David Miliband: The best commitment that I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House is thatthe RPA wants to pay validated payments in the appropriate way with the minimum of fuss and the minimum of disproportionate or other difficulties. That is the best that I can say: it wants to get on with its job and to carry it out as effectively as possible.

Point of Order

David Gauke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to return to the matter of outstanding answers to Home Office questions, which I raised with you last Thursday. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I had tabled a parliamentary question asking how many questions tabled before the summer recess remained unanswered when we returned on 9 October. At that time, I had not received a response, but I have now done so. The answer was that 86 questions fell into that category. Given that you, Mr. Speaker, had intervened and raised your concerns with the Home Secretary, I have two further anxieties. First, 86 questions took at least two months to answer. Secondly, a question that would reveal the Home Office's failure to comply with the Home Secretary's commitment has taken the best part of month. The House was thus unaware of that failure until now, so I would be grateful for your continued involvement in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and your advice on how best to take it forward.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. My first bit of good advice is that he should be the first Member in the new Session to visit the Table Office to put down a question or several questions if he wishes. I must also be fair to the Department and the Home Secretary. It has come to my attention that some hon. Members have tabled as many as, or even in excess of, 100 questions to be answered. That is unfair to any Department, because it puts a terrible pressure on officials who are already working hard to clear a backlog. I understand that that is not the hon. Gentleman's problem, but I appeal to hon. Members who are tabling large and substantial amounts of questions to Departments to bear in mind the fact that dedicated staff have to sift through all those questions, which have to be answered and which add further to the backlog. I will continue to keep an eye on the matter.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill  [Ways and Means]

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision under the Act in relation to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax in connection with a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by or under an order under Part 1 of the Act.
	When transferring regulatory functions from one regulator to another, it may be necessary to provide in an order to transfer assets and liabilities from the old to the new regulator. Without further provision, a transfer could, in some circumstances, result in inappropriate tax consequences for the transferor or transferee that would arise solely because of the transfer. Clause 6 tackles those unwanted consequences. It allows the Treasury to make tax provision by regulations in relation to a transfer of property rights and liabilities under an order in part 1. That will ensure that the transfer does not give rise to a tax charge or confer a tax advantage on the transferor or transferee. The resolution authorises the relevant provision.

David Heath: Why was not the resolution presented earlier? It is extraordinarily odd to introduce it before consideration of Lords amendments when nothing has changed.Part 1 has existed throughout our deliberations and always intended to create the circumstances for transfer. The tax provisions would therefore always have been necessary.

Patrick McFadden: When we reach the debates on the amendments, we can discuss the changes that have been made to tax provision. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will find that amendments were proposed to make some changes to the tax provisions in the Bill after it left this House. I hope that that clarifies matters.
	 Question agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFORM BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9th February 2006 and 15th May 2006 (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) and Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) (No.2)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from theLords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be broughtto a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Liz Blackman.]
	 Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 19. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Power to remove or reduce burdens

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The amendment makes explicit what was implicit in the draft of the Bill that left this House. The ability to remove sanctions for doing or not doing something in the course of an activity does not permit the removal of sanctions from unlawful and criminal activities such as drug dealing or people trafficking. In other words, the amendment makes it clear that only lawful activities would be affected by orders carried through for better regulation purposes. It is therefore a safeguard against inappropriate use of the order-making power. It would ensure that any change to sanctions for unlawful activity could not be delivered by an order under the Bill, but must be made through an alternative route.
	It is possible by order to repeal offences, or to reduce or remove sanctions for offences, which affect the carrying on of any lawful activity. This is not new; it was possible under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 as well. It has been shown to be a useful power in delivering better regulation and the provision will ensure that offences can be repealed and that sanctions can be reduced or removed when they are considered no longer to be targeted or appropriate. The Bill also carries over the ability under the present Act by order to replace sanctions with new sanctions, or to create a new offence that is punishable on indictment up to a limit of two years' imprisonment.

David Heath: It is a great pleasure to return to the Bill—

David Howarth: No, it is not.

David Heath: My hon. Friend says that it is not, but it is. It is a genuine pleasure. He described the Bill in its earlier stages as the abolition of Parliament Bill,but now it is not. It has been filleted, dissected, deconstructed and reconstructed. It is now a better Bill because some of the lame-brained arguments that we had to sit through in Committee—and, to a lesser extent, on Report—have been abandoned by the Government, who have accepted what we have been saying all along, namely, that the Bill was capable of redemption, but not in its original form. At that time, it was a thoroughly bad Bill that did things that were way beyond its stated scope. Now, it has been brought back under control.
	Lords amendment No. 1 may be viewed in that context. One of the points that we made earlier is that it should be no part of a deregulation Bill to allow by order the removal of criminal sanction. That should be a matter for primary legislation. We said that in Committee, but the Minister did not accept it. We said it again on Report, but the Minister still did not accept it. Now, however, it appears that wiser heads have prevailed. Someone has taken a grip on the Bill while it has been in the other place. It is a significant improvement that it now states what we knew it should have stated in the first place. I welcome the Lords amendment and I hope that the House will welcomeit too.

John Redwood: I welcome the Lords amendment. The Bill began as a sledgehammer to miss the nuts of over-regulation. That sledgehammer has now had some of its power removed by the Lords amendment. The problem is that, throughout the process, Ministers have refused to give us examples of how the very real powers under clause 1 would be used. They still seem to have no idea what they wish to deregulate. If they had spent the time that we have spent trying to water down the Bill's less desirable facets by putting through a proper deregulation Bill, we could have spent all that debating time repealing a whole lot of unnecessary regulation. That would have been much more productive and encouraging to people outside the House.
	In the spirit of amity on this particular proposal, however, I am happy that we shall not be able to use this mechanism for repealing criminal law. It is still proper that criminal law should be repealed by proper and open debate and the normal legislative scrutiny of the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain which of the sanctions he would like to remove under the power that remains, as that is surely the whole purpose of the legislation.

Patrick McFadden: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to detain the House on a Lords amendment that appears to have the agreement of the Opposition parties. It makes explicit what was previously implicit in the Bill, and that will be true of a number of the Lords amendments before us today. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked me to provide examples. The Bill is not the sole means of achieving our better regulation effort. He will know that, alongside it, intensive efforts have been made by the Departments to look at their burdens and to come up with simplification plans. Those plans will be published shortly.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment: No. 2

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 14 to 17, 26, 27 and 29.

Patrick McFadden: This group of amendments concerns the type of provision that can be made by orders under clauses 1 and 2, and particularly the extent to which functions can be conferred by order. The amendments have several effects.
	Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 concern the power to confer legislative functions by orders. Specifically, they restrict the categories of persons to whom legislative functions can be conferred. They respond to concerns that functions of legislating should be conferred only on appropriate bodies or persons. Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 clarify the purposes for which functions can be conferred and make drafting changes to relevant parts of clauses 1 and 2 to do so. Amendments Nos. 3, 16, 17, 26, 27 and 29 are similarly technical or consequential.
	In earlier parliamentary stages there was some discussion of this area of the Bill. I hope that the amendments will clarify the situation. We have also sought to listen and respond to the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. That Committee stated that including a power to confer legislative functions by order in the Bill, while not inappropriate, should be limited. In the light of the Committee's concerns and wider discussions on the issue, the amendments restrict the persons or bodies eligible to be given such powers to three categories.
	The first category of persons who are most likely to be given powers to legislate as part of future orders is Ministers. The second category is persons or bodies who have had functions conferred on them or transferred to them by an enactment. That will ensure that powers to legislate can only be conferred on persons or bodies already recognised by Parliament as suitable. The third category is the body or holder of an office created by the order itself. That power will be useful, for example, in the case of a merger, where a successful transfer of functions might necessitate the creation of a new body, when that is for the purposes set out in either clause 1 or clause 2. The Government consider that ability essential if the Bill is to provide a workable and effective vehicle for delivering reforms, such as the types of merger proposed by Philip Hampton.
	I hope that the amendment will deal with someof the off-stage characters who have occasionally appeared in our deliberations. There were accusations that it was possible that President Bush, former Prime Minister Berlusconi or various other characters might end up legislating through the Bill. As discussed previously, while I do not believe that that was ever the case, the amendments now make it pretty clear whom we are talking about in relation to delegation.
	The Government have also sought to respond to concerns surrounding the ability of bodies or holders of offices, who have been given legislative powers by an order, further to delegate those powers to others. I remember an exchange on that issue in earlier Commons stages. Reference was made to "Halsbury's Laws", which I am happy to quote again:
	"In accordance with the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, a statutory power must be exercised only by the body or officer on whom it has been conferred, unless sub-delegation of the power is authorised by express words or necessary implication. There is a strong presumption against construing a grant of legislative power as impliedly authorising sub-delegation".
	There was some disagreement about that during our earlier deliberations.
	The report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated:
	"We agree with the conclusion...of the memorandum"
	—from the Cabinet Office—
	"that a person to whom power to legislate was given by the order could not delegate that function to someone else and that the order could not enable that to be done."
	My briefing uses the phrase "the better legal view". It may be contested, but the "better legal view" was that such passing on of delegated legislative powers could not happen. The amendments, however, remove the necessity to go over the ground again in arguing about who has the better legal view by making clear precisely to whom legislative powers could be delegated and on what basis that would happen. They also deal withthe passing on of such powers. I hope that that clarifies the position and that the House will feel able to accept the amendments.

Andrew Turner: Coming to the Bill at this stage is rather like entering a convention of people who have watched all the previous episodes of "EastEnders".

David Howarth: Or "The West Wing".

Andrew Turner: Or, indeed, "The West Wing".
	As an outsider, I feel that I should first welcome the amendments introduced by the Minister—and, indeed, other amendments which he proposes to introduce later. The Bill is designed to make tackling regulation easier and to help establish a more risk-based approach to it. I hope that the amendments will contribute to that, but the Bill has not been dealt with as clearly as it should have been. There has been a great deal of debate in the House, but it would appear that the Government started with what was, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) observed, a thoroughly bad Bill. It has been described, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), as a Bill to abolish Parliament. It has undergone considerable metamorphoses, particularly in the other place, but the Government's habit of introducing late amendments in this place has not made scrutiny of it any more effective.

John Redwood: Could it be that because we rarely receive an answer to a question and we are not allowed to meet very often, the Government feel that they have achieved their objective of abolishing Parliament without any need for the Bill?

Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend's experience of these matters is much greater than mine, but I feel that what we have is a Bill that attempts to solve the problems that the Government identified in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.

Greg Knight: While my hon. Friend's point about the big changes that have been made to the Bill is accurate, should not the fact that the Minister has been willing to make those changes be a matter for praise rather than criticism? Might it not help us all if he circulated a paper to his ministerial colleagues explaining that they should listen to Parliament in future?

Andrew Turner: I am sure that it would. The Minister did say that other Departments were drawing up lists of amendments and deregulatory measures that they intended to introduce, and I look forward to hearing about those in more detail in the forthcoming Session.
	The Bill was designed to solve what the Government saw as a problem with the Regulatory ReformAct 2001, namely, that it was not deregulating enough. Only 27 regulations were scrapped under the 2001 Act. That is a poor performance by any measure, but I am sorry to say that I think that it is a sign more of the Government's failure than of the failure of the Act. The Government were good on rhetoric and poor on delivery. Now, it appears that the Minister is belatedly becoming slightly better at delivery and is hoping that his ministerial colleagues in other Departments will become better at it as well.
	In their impatience, the Government decided thatthe best way to get rid of red tape was to abolish parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that that was right, and I warmly welcome the amendments made to the Bill in another place.

Rob Marris: I welcome the clarification in the amendments. The extract from "Halsbury's Laws" and the maxim that my hon. Friend the Minister read out today, as he did on Report, were entirely clear. However, Lords amendment No. 29 says:
	"In subsection (2)(e) 'function of legislating' has the same meaning as in section 5."
	Clause 5—it will become section 5 on enactment—has no definition of "function of legislating." However, clause 5 places conditions upon "function of legislating." Will my hon. Friend explain why Lords amendment No. 29—not that he can speak for the Lords—does not talk about the "function of legislating" being subject to the same conditions as in section 5? That is the direction that the other place wishes to go and the direction in which we should be going. There is a risk that the Bill as amended would be unclear, and I do not think that a Minister, or anyone with delegated power under the Bill, could change the working of clause 5.

David Heath: The notion that the Minister cannot speak to amendments in the Lords that were tabled by a Minister in another place is a curious one; presumably they will have had some communication before this stage in the Bill.
	I welcome the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) to the Bill. It was immediately obvious that he had not taken part in previous exchanges on the Bill because he does not have the pachycephalus look that so many of us have; the thickening of the brow caused by banging our heads against the brick wall of the previous Minister's inscrutability. This Minister, I hasten to add, has been a breath of fresh air in our proceedings. We were quite incapable of getting over the simplest point in Committee but, following more careful consideration, this Minister and his colleague in another place have tabled amendments that are almost identical to those we requested. Let us not look a gift horse in the mouth; let us accept that the Minister has been persuaded.
	The Minister said that the view expressed previously was the "better legal view." I have to say that the "better legal view" is one that has been tested in the courts and found to be the correct legal view, other than which it is simply an alternative legal view. I am glad that the Minister has now accepted our view that there was an obvious ambiguity in the previous wording of the clause. It was wrong even to give the impression that it was possible to allow secondary delegation of legislative powers. That was our concern.
	As the Minister has said, we have now removed the off-stage hordes and characters such as President Bush and ex-Prime Minister Berlusconi. Would that it were that simple to remove them in real life; at least they are no longer in consideration under the Bill. I thank the Minister for agreeing to the change. It was important to specify how the delegated legislation-making powers were to be affected, to whom those powers could be delegated and, more importantly, to whom they could not be delegated. I simply wish that when we raised the issue before, we did not have to strike our foreheads against a brick wall so often. At least now it has been demolished.

John Redwood: What worries me about the amendment is that it requires us to trust Ministers. I suspect that we can do nothing but trust Ministers, given the structure of the legislation, but I feel as though I am being offered a lucky dip present, of the sort one gets during the season of goodwill. The packaging looks very nice, and I am told that it will really thrill me, but I have the awful feeling that when I get it home I will discover something completely inappropriate and not commensurate with the investment made in it.
	My confidence in Ministers has not been increased by the deliberations on the Bill that I have witnessed. We will legislate, in all probability, with no knowledge of what Departments will propose by way of deregulation. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us a little more about how Ministers will use the powers in the amendment, which makes it clear that it is Ministers and their creatures who will have the power. Why should we trust Ministers to deregulate under this power, when this team of Ministers has introduced 4,000 new statutory instruments every year? Why should we trust Ministers when they have given in in countless negotiations in the European Union and then brought the results before this House? How can Ministers use their powers to abate that flow if they are not dealing with the prime source—the legislative machines in Brussels and Whitehall?
	I am sure that the Queen's Speech will be full of Bills, which will lead to many more statutory instruments and regulations. Will the Minister have any chance to use the powers in the amendment to arrest that tide or will we see more of the same? We heard that 27 items were removed under the previous legislation. Over a five-year period, that is a small fraction of 1 per cent. of the 4,000 new SIs every year. That shows that the Government are not serious about deregulation.

Rob Marris: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some examples of which regulations the powers in the Bill could be used on.

John Redwood: I think that that would stray rather far from the amendment. However, my party advanced a policy package, including 63 items for deregulation, before the last general election. It is in the Minister's office and we would be happy to provide support to deregulate any or all of those items, some of which could be done under this legislation.

Patrick McFadden: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, many facts and figures are cited in this area, some of which shed light on the debate and some of which do not. It is alleged that there are 4,000 new regulations a year. The number of Acts of Parliament passed each parliamentary Session are broadly of the same order of magnitude under this Administration as under the last, as is the number of SIs introduced each year. The latter number has remained between 3,200 and 3,500 for the last decade and more.
	Let us not pretend either that every SI is a burden on business. More than 95 per cent. of SIs have no impact on business. Many of those have only a local or temporary effect, such as road traffic orders. It does not shed light on our debates to pretend that 4,000 new regulations on business are passed each year.
	As for those regulations that may be removed, reference has been made to the regulatory reform orders passed under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Some 30 RROs have been passed, but we should not make the mistake that that means that only 30 items have been deregulated. For example, the fire RRO replaced about 50 pieces of legislation with one new, risk-based regime. That shows that one RRO can have a wide impact.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) asked about Lords amendment No. 29, which moves the definition of the phrase "function of legislating". However, that does not imply that the restrictions in clause 5 on conferring that function always apply. I hope that that clarifies matters for my hon. Friend.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Power to implement Law Commission recommendations

Lords amendment: No. 7.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8, 10 to 13, 20 to 25, 28, 36 and 46.

Patrick McFadden: This matter was the subject of considerable discussion both here and in the other place. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords also commented on it. After careful consideration, the Government proposed that clause 3 should be removed from the Bill, and the other place agreed. However, it is clear that the problem that clause 3 sought to address will require action. The various Committees that have reviewed the matter seem to have reached consensus about that, and Members of both Houses have spoken about the chronic backlog and delay that have been caused. Many have said that something must be done about the problem. As the House will know, discussions are still going on as the Government continue to seek a better mechanism to allow suitable Law Commission recommendations to be enacted more quickly.
	The other amendments are all consequential on the removal of clause 3.

Andrew Turner: I shall be brief. The Government's acceptance of the Lords amendments—and especially of amendment No. 7, which relates to clause 3—is welcome. There may be a need for more rapid implementation of Law Commission proposals, but the power originally included in the Bill was not appropriate, as such proposals deserve far greater parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the Government's acceptance of these amendments.

Andrew Miller: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that my hon. Friend the Minister was a breath of fresh air. I am not going to disagree with him, but I raise a serious query about how we are to deal with these matters. It is unacceptable for this House—not just this Government—to leave the matters unattended. The Law Commission has dealt with some important items over many years. A huge amount of work has been undertaken, and the House has yet to find a way to create an adequate mechanism. The arguments about whether the Bill was the correct way are in a sense done and dusted now that the Government have withdrawn clause 3. However, I plead with hon. Members, especially the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and other senior Members, to reflect on the matter. We need to find a way through this very difficult problem.

David Heath: I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) that there is a need to return to this issue. Our criticism of the original proposal was not that there should not be an accelerated way of dealing with non-controversial Law Commission proposals; it is clear that there should be. We had three objections to what was proposed. The first was that there was an unrestricted power to amend, abolish or codify common law, which frankly is not something that can be done in a Committee.
	The second objection—this was the most important stumbling block for many hon. Friends—was the ability that the Bill gave to Ministers to amend Law Commission proposals and put them through the accelerated procedure without the House having the opportunity to debate what essentially would be new law that did not have the approval of the Law Commission in place. Thirdly, the absence of any ability for parliamentary amendment of Law Commission Bills was important. As we know, sometimes there is a necessity for amendment.
	All those objections have been swept away by the removal of clause 3 and of the references to the Law Commission from the title of the Bill, but the fact remains that we need to find a better way of dealing with this matter. The Minister knows that Baroness Ashton of Upholland has been speaking to Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland in another place to find a way through this impasse. They have brought into those discussions Mr. Justice Toulson, the former chairman of the Law Commission. It seems to me that something will emerge from that.
	May I urge the Minister to use his best endeavours to ensure that we have a similar discussion in this House? It is not purely a matter for the legal brains in the Lords. I would have expected the Leader of the House to talk to us corporately—both to Front-Bench Members and to colleagues on the Back Benches who take an interest— about the appropriate way forward so that we can make real progress and so that changes in Standing Orders can be introduced, if that is required, to enable us to do a better job of dealing with Law Commission proposals.
	I am delighted that the Government have realised that what they proposed was not acceptable. I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Greg Knight: On this issue, I find myself nearer to Somerton and Frome than to Ellesmere Port. I have always taken the view that clause 3 was not acceptable. Worthy though the Law Commission is—as is the Scottish Law Commission and the Northern Ireland Law Commission—clause 3 would have allowed, under the fast-track process, laws to be abolished, common law to be codified, bodies or offices to be abolished and any previous enactment to be amended or repealed. I am pleased that at last the Minister has agreed to take it out of the Bill.
	I agree that we ought to look at ways of dealing with suitable Law Commission proposals, but I emphasise, as the Minister did—I hope that it was not a slip of the tongue—the word "suitable". He did not say thathe would look at ways of fast-tracking all Law Commission proposals; he used the word "suitable", so will he confirm that that is indeed his view and that he accepts the argument that the Law Commission could propose certain provisions that are not suitable for a fast-track process and that should be subjected to the full rigour of scrutiny? Some of the proposals examined by the Law Commission are highly controversial and are not settled issues across the political divide. When an issue is controversial, our normal processes should apply.
	I welcome the Minister's decision and the other changes that he now supports. I do not regard it as a matter for criticism that he has been prepared to make those changes: quite the reverse—he deserves praise for accepting the majority of the opinion of both Houses on the issue. I hope that other Ministers will follow his excellent example.
	When the Bill hits the statute book, I understand that the Minister may be hoping to bring forward measures as early as March. If that is the case, will he put my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) out of his misery and give one or two examples of the issues to which he will give priority?

John Redwood: I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Although it was wise of the Minister to accept the Lords amendment and to recommend to the House that we share that acceptance, there is a big problem, which is not confined to Law Commission recommendations. The problem is over what the Government choose to do by statutory instrument and what they choose to do by primary legislation.
	Sometimes, a Committee of the House is faced with a 50 or 100-page wide-ranging statutory instrument of great complexity and considerable importance. A limited number of colleagues hold a short debate and they have to vote on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; nothing can be amended. When constituents write to us some time later to ask how a measure could become law with no fuss, no argument and no debate, we have to reply that it was easy, because it had been decided that the matter was a statutory instrument, under a general framework from a piece of primary legislation—such as the European Communities Act 1972, to name but one such piece. Wide-ranging provisions can go through as an SI under an Act with no proper scrutiny or debate, and certainly without the opportunity to amend, which is crucial to the proper examination of legislation.
	Although it is prudent of the Government to recommend withdrawing from the Bill such a comprehensive power over law reform, the House really needs proposals from them to enable us to decide that something is contentious and thus needs proper scrutiny and debate. Even if it is contentious only for a minority of Members they should have a right to decent time and a procedure that can explore the possibilities and the options. If there are many other less contentious, or completely uncontentious issues, under the Law Commission, perhaps we need a much easier form than the full panoply of primary legislation procedure.

David Heath: I believe that I am right in saying that one of the areas being explored by colleagues with Ministers is precisely how that sort of parliamentary trigger for debate could be occasioned.

John Redwood: I encourage all those who are making such deliberations. That is extremely good news, but I hope that when the Minister thinks further about the matter he will take on board the problem that the traditional balance between primary legislation and statutory instruments is being eroded, and that more and more weight is being put on the statutory instrument. Often, nowadays, there are truncated guillotine debates—albeit rather longer debates, with the opportunity to amend and probe—on primary legislation, in which we are told that all the interesting things about which we want an answer will become apparent only under the secondary legislation that will follow. That means that debate is not only truncated but hollowed out, because we do not know in principle whether we would like to adopt the measure, as all the interesting detail is left out.
	There is a real muddle; we should allow the House to do its job, but we should accept that there are time pressures. We should make sure that the job is done really thoroughly only when we are dealing with matters of great significance or controversy—but on those occasions, we would appreciate the right to be thorough. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to speak for the whole House on such matters, and to protect the rights of the minority, so that when that minority has a legitimate reason to disagree, the House can at least have it out in proper debate, before the Government use their majority to get their way, if they see fit. I am happy with the recommendation to remove clause 3, but I hope that something much more substantial and comprehensive will result from the rethink, so that we can legislate better across the piece.

Rob Marris: Lords amendment No. 13 refers tosome of the Bill's powers being used for legislationthat merely consolidates other legislation. My understanding is that, on occasion, the Law Commission makes recommendations on the consolidation of legislation—for example, it might recommend pulling together several disparate Acts that have built up over the years into one, comprehensive Act that does not change the law, but merely puts it together in one recorded place. Do the Government intend to use Lords amendment No. 13 to implement Law Commission reports that deal merely with the consolidation, and not the changing, of legislation?

Patrick McFadden: With leave of the House, I shall respond to the points raised. To some extent, this debate illustrates a problem for Government in general. On one hand, if we introduce a Bill and resist all amendment to it, we are criticised for not listening to debate, for being inflexible and for ramming things through using the will of the parliamentary majority—or at least a House of Commons majority. On the other hand, if we amend a Bill, we are accused of admitting that the original version was flawed. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for his comments on that point.
	It strikes me that I have been remiss in not thanking the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), and in not welcoming him to our deliberations. I can only say that he has missed a great deal of fun.
	To return to the dilemma that amendment poses for a Government, we added the measure to the Bill because the Government recognised—as did hon. Members on both sides of the House, as has been mentioned—that there is a problem: Law Commission recommendations have been piling up, but parliamentary process being what it is, they often do not make the final cut when the Government decide what should be included in the Queen's Speech.

David Heath: I understand that argument entirely, but most Law Commission recommendations—although not all of them—propose changes to matters that fall within the remit of the Home Office, which has Bill after Bill. It has had more Bills in the lifetime of this Government than it did in the entire previous century. Why on earth could the Law Commission proposals not be tacked on, as everything else is, to the Home Office Bills that we are asked to consider almost continuously?

Patrick McFadden: I will relay the hon. Gentleman's request for more and longer Home Office legislation to the Home Secretary. I am sure that if my right hon. Friend can squeeze anything in between now and next week he will do so.

John Redwood: Many hon. Members, including myself, are pleased that the Government have listened both to the other place and to the views of many hon. Members, and have backed amendments to improve the Bill and remove problems. There is still an underlying problem that needs to be solved, but that does not mean that the original version was the right way of proceeding.

Patrick McFadden: I accept that. As I said, hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that there is a problem. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to discussions outside the Chamber, and I agree that they are a matter for the House, too. I hope, however, that he will understand if I do not go into too much detail about the way in which we will deal with those matters. The original proposition was whether they should be dealt with in the Bill, but that is no longer the case. I hope that, for the purposes of today's debate, we can leave it there. In answer to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, my understanding is that those discussions would consider suitability and proportionality. Some of the proposals are controversial and rest on issues of proportionality and extent, which must be taken into account.
	I hope that this clarifies matters for my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Lords amendment No. 13 provides a definition of "restate", which is used in clauses 5 to 8. It does not replace consolidation Bills with orders, which will continue to be used in the usual way. On that note, I urge the House to agree the amendments made in the other place.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Clause 4
	 — 
	Preconditions

Lords amendment: No. 9.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss consequential amendment (a).

David Heath: One of our principal concerns about the Bill centres on the absence of prescription, either by direct statement or by negation, of measures that can be amended by virtue of the fast-track proposals. From the outset, we made it quite clear that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Bill, if enacted, to be used to effect constitutional change. We made it plain in amendments that we tabled in Committee and on Report, and in speeches on Second and Third Readings, that matters of constitutional significance should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. That proposition was rejected in Commons proceedings on the Bill, but it has been accepted in another place. We strongly support Lords amendment No. 9, which adds an extra condition that Ministers must take into account when determining whether a matter is suitable for the fast-track procedure. It states that a provision can be considered if it
	"is not of constitutional significance."
	So much, so good, although that does raise some questions about what is, and what is not, of constitutional significance.
	I notice that among the Members present is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—and possibly for Constitutional Affairs, too, as I am never sure nowadays exactly what his title is. However, whichever Department or Departments he belongs to, he is an ornament to it or to both of them. He knows what I am about to say, because we have discussed this matter elsewhere. I would like to hear a clear statement from the Government that there are no circumstances in which this procedure could be used to amend the Scotland Act 1998. I think that it is his view that he cannot envisage any circumstances in which it could be used for that purpose. But, for some reason that I am not entirely clear about, it is not appropriate for the Government either to put that into statute or to say it out loud. It would be extremely helpful if he, or the Minister, were to stand up at the Dispatch Box today and explicitly say, "This procedure will not be used to amend the Scotland Act 1998." This matter is of some concern north of the border, and a clear statement would be helpful both to Members and to those watching our proceedings.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the view of the Scottish Parliament that all of the Scotland Act is to be considered constitutionally important? This Government gave that assurance to the Scottish Parliament in the course of the Sewell motion's passage through the Scottish Parliament.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why it is so perverse of the Government here and now not to say that and restate that this procedure will not be used to amend the Scotland Act. However, I am sure that they will say that, when the Minister responds to this debate.
	I want to make it very plain that if the Government do not agree to amendment (a), it will be our intention to press it to a Division, should Lords Amendment No. 9 be accepted by the House. It is clear to us that what comprises a constitutional matter—a provision "of constitutional significance", as the Bill will say—is a matter that is objective; it is not a matter for the decision or opinion of a Minister. Because of the arrangement of the terms of the clause in which the provision is inserted, it is made to be subsequent to the decision of the Minister as to whether he "considers" a matter to be of constitutional significance.
	Our amendment would remove that subjective test, and replace it with an objective test. What is the practical significance of that? First, it would give reassurance to many people in this country that their constitution will not be tinkered with by means of a fast-track procedure, beyond the scope of this Chamber. Secondly, it means that the action of a Minister in deciding to use the mechanism would be justiciable. It could be argued that it is already, as it is open to judicial review, but the difficulty with saying that the Minister's decision will be open to judicial review is that what is open to judicial review is the means by which the Minister reaches his decision; what is open to such review is whether that decision is a reasoned opinion of a reasonable man or woman. That is not what we are saying. We are saying: is it the right decision? That is an objective test, and one that the court can quite properly adjudicate on. It is quite possible for a Minister to come to a mistaken decision by proper means—by proper reasoning. That would still allow for faulty procedure.
	In practical terms, our proposal would not have a huge effect, which is why I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. It is a perfectly sensible amendment. It provides for an objective test. He says—in good faith, I hope—that there are no circumstances in which a Minister would deviate from that objective test in any case. Therefore, in practical terms, it would make no difference to the operation of the Bill. However, it would provide the reassurance that future Ministers—I am not thinking of Ministers of this Government, or of this Administration in any way—who might be tempted to use the mechanism in an improper way, cannot do so. That is our precise intent in tabling this amendment, and I commend it to the House. It would improve the Bill, and I very much hope that the Minister will now do two things: state in terms that the Bill will never be used to amend the Scotland Act 1998, and accept our amendment.

Patrick McFadden: I ask the House to agree with the Lords in their amendment No. 9 but to reject the Liberal Democrats' amendment (a). As was said, amendment No. 9 creates a new precondition. We thought carefully about how to deal with the issue that was raised. As Members know, a list of enactments and a list of areas were suggested, and for various reasons neither suggestion is a particularly helpful way to proceed. One of those reasons is that defining what is constitutionally significant in a system such as ours is not an exact science. Indeed, trying to agree a list of enactments that could be uniformly accepted as constitutional illustrated part of that difficulty.
	Amendment No. 9 creates instead a new precondition that prevents a Minister from making provision in an order that he considers constitutionally significant. The only exception is that orders may restate constitutionally significant provisions, but only where doing so would make the law more accessible or more easily understood.
	Despite the substantial safeguards already in the Bill—the preconditions in clause 4, the public consultation requirement and the veto in respect of Committees—concerns persisted that the order-making powers could be used to bring about significant constitutional change. The Government were clear from the start that those concerns were misplaced, but we proposed amendment No. 9 to put the issue beyond possible doubt. We consider the new precondition to be the most effective mechanism in meeting any concerns about the Bill's constitutional impact, while retaining the supremacy of Parliament as the law-making body in the UK. It provides robust protection by preventing orders from delivering constitutionally significant amendments to legislation, but it will not inhibit the delivery of better regulation.
	The main effect of amendment (a), however, would be to alter the balance between the judgment of Ministers and Parliament on the one hand, and the power of the courts on the other. If it were accepted, in undertaking a judicial review of an order a court would not only examine whether a Minister acted reasonably in reaching his judgment; it would be able to decide whether the provision of the order was in fact of constitutional significance. In other words, a court could substitute the Minister's and Parliament's opinion with its own.

Andrew Turner: Will the Minister give way?

Patrick McFadden: I want to make some progress.
	These are not matters of certainty; in our system, which is without a written, codified constitution, they are inevitably to some degree matters of judgment.

David Howarth: I thank the Minister for giving way. He says that it would be a question of a court passing judgment on the Minister's and Parliament's view of the constitution, but that is not quite right; a court would pass judgment on the Minister's view of the constitution, and if it found that the Minister had got it wrong, the matter would come back to Parliament. Does the Minister not accept that the amendment would therefore protect Parliament against Ministers? He should not mix Ministers and Parliament together in his comments.

Patrick McFadden: Of course, the Minister's judgment is debated by Parliament as part of the process in the Bill. His judgment is not the end of the process. The Government are firmly of the opinion that the right balance is the one that the UK has adopted in the past: it is for Ministers and Parliament to judge whether an order makes provision of constitutional significance. If amendment (a) were included in the Bill, on the other hand, judges could override both Ministers and Parliament about whether an order is of constitutional importance. As someone in the other place put it, that would
	"elevate judicial accountability over political accountability."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 21.]
	We do not want to go down that road.

John Redwood: When I first came into the House, there was a doctrine that not only did any item of constitutional significance go through a full legislative process, but all stages took place on the Floor of the House. I do not think that what constituted such an item was ever codified or written down. It was rather like an elephant: it was difficult to define, but we would recognise one when we saw it. People in those days handled constitutional significance in that way. As a compromise, would it not be possible for the Minister to accept that perhaps the Speaker, on the advice of the House authorities, should decide whether an item is of constitutional significance? Then it would be treated appropriately.

Patrick McFadden: The right hon. Gentleman touches on something important: these things are not codified and they are matters of judgment. We believe that the Bill and the safeguards in it provide the best way of proceeding by making it a matter of whether the Minister considers, in the first instance, that the issues are of constitutional significance. There is no agreement about what would be in any written constitution should we wish to try to change the system that we have had for some time. For example, what the Constitution Committee in another place would want to be part of any constitution is unlikely to be the same as what this House, or even perhaps the judges, would want. A decision on whether provisions are of constitutional significance is therefore inherently a matter of judgment. Our belief is that that judgment should be exercised by Ministers, subject to parliamentary views.
	In the context of the Bill, the Minister is required to set out his reasons in the explanatory document that must be laid alongside any order. It is then for Parliament to scrutinise rigorously both the content of the order and the Minister's decisions, along with the reasons that he has given for them. On the basis of its own judgment after considering that evidence, Parliament must decide whether it agrees or disagrees with the Minister's opinion. If the relevant parliamentary Committees in either House of Parliament do not agree with the Minister that the order meets the preconditions in clause 4, including the constitutional precondition, they have a statutory power of veto. The Government have also given an undertaking that they will not force through orders in the face of opposition from Parliament. That process is in keeping with the tradition of the primacy of Parliament. We believe that the Bill should not be used to alter that balance of power.
	In summary, as hon. Members know only too well, this amendment goes to the heart of a much wider debate of fundamental importance. We believe that, for the purposes of the Bill, the precondition as set out in amendment No. 9, but not amendment (a), is the way to proceed.

David Howarth: The Bill has been like a time bomb ticking away in both Chambers of Parliament. Slowly, mainly in the other place, various wires that connect the timer to the explosive device have been snipped away. We are facing the last small wire, which, if cut, would finally make the entire Bill safe. It is a much better Bill than it was. It can no longer apply to itself or to the Human Rights Act 1998.
	However, as has been made clear during the debate, we are not entirely sure whether the Bill can affect the Scotland Act 1998, trial by jury, the structure of local government, electoral law, the dismissal of judges and a whole host of other aspects of the law that might be reasonably considered to be constitutional. The central question is whether the judgment of whether a proposed change represents a matter of constitutional significance should be a matter principally for Ministers, or the courts and then Parliament.
	We have discussed whether there would be a difference between a subjective and an objective test. It has been said that there could be judicial review of even a subjective test, although it seems rather odd that if a Minister objected to judicial interference, such interference would not be ruled out on the basis of the subjective test in the Bill. The difference would be the kind of test that the courts would apply. There would be a difference between saying what a Minister considered—or perhaps, in certain circumstances, what a Minister reasonably considered—and deciding what actually is the law and a matter of constitutional significance. The question is not whether judges have a place in the system, but the test that they use when exercising their powers.
	A further question has been raised about whether this would make any difference in practice. My view differs slightly from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) because I think that it will. If Ministers were to face judicial review on the basis of what is really, in law, a matter of constitutional significance, they would be more risk adverse. They would not want to waste everyone's time by bringing forward a regulatory order that would not get through the courts. As a matter of constitutional propriety, that is right, because there should be a bias in favour of full parliamentary procedure when dealing with matters affecting the political process. This is not a question of Parliament versus the courts—the opposite is the case. If a court found that a regulation concerned a matter of constitutional significance, the matter would have to be brought back to the House and dealt with by way of a full Bill. The main point of contention throughout our debates on this Bill has been what can be pushed through by statutory instrument and what should be dealt with through primary legislation.
	As part of the constitutional conversation that goes on among the Government, the courts and Parliament, it is appropriate that the courts should have the right to determine the extent of scrutiny that we should give such matters. The question for a court is not what the Government's policy should be, or what constitutional changes should be made, but the procedure that should be used to decide the matter. Amendment (a) would ensure that if a court decided that a matter was one of constitutional significance, it would have to be dealt with by way of a full Bill—the full parliamentary procedure.
	The idea that Ministers should have a privileged right to decide what is a matter of constitutional significance is a constitutional monstrosity. It might well be that Ministers are well placed to make judgments on policy—the Minister referred to matters of policy—such as whether an end could be better attained without legislation, as is set out in the Bill. However, the question of constitutional significance should not be for them to judge. Ministers are interested parties. Much of our constitution is about precisely the power of Ministers and their relationship with Parliament and the law.
	Some 750 years ago, the jurist, Henry Bracton, said that the king is under no man, but under God and the law, for the law makes the king. The point is that Ministers' powers result from the law, especially constitutional law, so they should not be given special privileges when determining what those powers are, otherwise the rule of law itself breaks down.

John Redwood: I agree up to a point with the hon. Gentleman. Although it is obviously imperative that all Ministers are under the law, Ministers have one important power that others do not have. By virtue of democratic accountability and being elected, they can command a majority in the House. All the time the Minister commands the good will of his colleagues, surely he has some right to change the law when he wishes. One must be careful how one prescribes.

David Howarth: It is an important question whether Ministers should have the power to change the law, as opposed to Parliament having the power to change the law. That is what we are insisting on. When matters are of constitutional significance, Parliament, through the full procedure of passing a Bill, should decide it, not Ministers. In the end it comes down not to a contest between the courts and Parliament, but to the age-old contest between the Crown and Parliament.

Rob Marris: I hesitate to cross swords with such an eminent legal lecturer, professor or whatever as the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) wasbut probably no longer is—I do not think he is moonlighting—but I shall charge in none the less, and no doubt he will intervene on me if I get it wrong.
	I start by pointing out that when moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) elided constitutional matter and constitutional significance. As so often in our constitution, it is difficult to define these things, which is a weakness. Without readily being able to come up with an example, I suggest that not all constitutional matters are constitutionally significant. One has to be careful about eliding those two, as I think the hon. Gentleman did.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge, while putting forward what may appear to him, though not to me, a sound academic argument and quoting jurists from centuries ago, rather overlooked the locks elsewhere in the Bill which have been the subject of much debate—the multi-stage process that we debated at length on Second Reading. I stand, not surprisingly, with my hon. Friend and neighbour the Minister in wishing to assert ministerial accountability over judicial accountability, to use the kind of phrase that has been used. I shall expand on that a little.
	This brings us to the beloved case, which is well known to the Minister and me because it is a west midlands case, of Associated Provincial Picture Houses  v. Wednesbury Corporation, which was decided in 1932, I think—

David Howarth: 1948.

Rob Marris: Indeed. It is a venerable case, and it is the starting point for administrative accountability and judicial review in our legal system.
	With reference to the amendment and where the hon. Member for Cambridge and his colleagues seek to insert it in the Bill, I think he misreads the Bill, even with the amendment. The Bill does not say, and would not say with amendment (a), what the Minister considers relevant. That is the straw man to which the hon. Member for Cambridge addressed his remarks. The Bill does not say in clause 4(1) line 2 what the Minister considers relevant. Were it to say that, there might be a little more weight to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the amendment.
	What the argument boils down to is that if the Government's wording is accepted, matters could still go to court. If amendment (a) were accepted tonight, matters could go to court, but with greater powers for the court. That seems a somewhat ironic proposition for the Liberal Democrats to put forward. I do not know whether the Conservatives are supporting them, but we shall find out shortly, no doubt. When we opened the debate on the Bill tonight, some Opposition Members described it as a Bill which, when it started its passage, particularly on Second Reading, for which I was present, was an attempt to abolish Parliament. They seemed to be standing up for Parliament, as all hon. Members would wish to, but amendment (a) suggests that they do not wish to stand up for Parliament but for the judiciary.

David Heath: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that when the only protection that Parliament has from the Executive is the judiciary, we will take the judiciary every time?

Rob Marris: That would be the case were I to accept the term, "only protection", but in this context Ido not.

David Howarth: To approach the same point from a different angle, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the purpose of amendment (a) is to protect Parliament against erroneous ministerial determinations about what is of constitutional significance, and that the effect of such a judicial decision would be to bring the matter back here to us in this House?

Rob Marris: Again, I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition that his amendment would, even via the device of the courts, offer greater protection to Parliament than that which is in the Bill.

Pete Wishart: I rise to express my deep concern and disappointment about amendment No. 9. I want to ask the Minister directly why the Scottish Parliament was led to believe that all matters in the Scotland Act 1998 would be constitutionally significant and exempt from orders under the Bill. As it stands, we find that the1998 Act is treated no differently from any other Act or statute, in that it is given no special treatment or accorded any other protection from such orders. I saw the Minister shaking his head when I mentioned the Scottish Parliament. However, during the progress of the Sewel consent motion in the Scottish Parliament earlier this year, the Scottish Minister in charge of securing its passage went as far as to say that the Executive are of the view that no part of the 1998 Act could be said not to be of constitutional significance, and that amending it by an order would be a practical impossibility. Yet it is not a practical impossibility but impending reality. Clearly, his understanding was that the 1998 Act would be exempt. Before saying something as bold and as stark to the Scottish Parliament, he must have been given some sort of assurance from this House. Will the Minister clarify that?
	A coach and horses is being driven through the whole Sewel convention. That will further undermine any future assurances given to this House about legislating on behalf of the Scottish Parliament. After seeing the debate in the Scottish Parliament and looking at the minutes of the Committee that dealt with the matter, I fully expected an amendment that would exempt the 1998 Act, along with the Human Rights Act 1998, as being beyond the scope of the Bill. Yet the Lords amendment, while it exempts many measures that are considered to be of constitutional significance, could still alter matters that are "minor or consequential".
	One person's "minor or consequential" is another person's "important and highly significant". I share the Liberal Democrats' concern that the Minister will make the choice as to whether matters are constitutionally significant or minor and inconsequential. I concede that some matters in the 1998 Act that need amendment are of no constitutional importance, but why can they not be considered by the Scottish Parliament? Why should it be left to this House to consider such measures?
	I am personally disappointed that Lord Goodhart did not pursue the amendment that would have taken the 1998 Act out of all this. He correctly said that the Act is the possession of the Scottish Parliament, and a conduit between it and this House. It was said in another place that the 1998 Act is a responsibility of this House constitutionally. However, in the real world of Scottish politics we are all moving on. In the Scottish Parliament, this debate is changing dramatically, as is the whole culture. It is increasingly likely that next year my hon. Friend the Memberfor Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will be theFirst Minister of a Scottish National party-led Administration, and we will look carefully at the whole Sewel arrangement and all the powers that are reserved to this House. After this episode, we will be entirely justified in doing so. The Scottish Parliament is a grown-up institution that can properly look after itself and does not need the benevolence of this House to look after its affairs. The Government have shown nothing but contempt to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Executive and the whole Sewel process.

John Redwood: I have some sympathy with both sides in this debate. It is absolutely right that items of constitutional significance should not go through the accelerated procedure envisaged in the Bill, and I see that the Government have recognised that to some extent and tried to find a solution. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats have a perfectly good point in that it leaves a lot of discretion in the hands of Ministers, who could be casual about it, and it might not be easy for the House to assert itself given that most Ministers, for most of the time, speak for the majority in the House and would expect it to agree with an idea and see it through. Such items would come to light only if there were a great movement of popular opinion and the Opposition party or parties were able to articulate it well.
	My worry about willingly and readily accepting amendment (a) is that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seemed to take great delight in the notion of making judges make difficult decisions that should properly be taken in the House of Commons.

Greg Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under amendment (a) the only involvement of the courts would be to the extent of saying to the Minister, "You've used the wrong procedure; this is of significance and should therefore be referred back to Parliament"?

John Redwood: That is right, and it may well bring me down on the side of supporting amendment (a). However, it remains the case that a very important decision that should properly be taken by Parliament would be taken by a court of law in certain extreme cases, which is a bit of a pity.

Andrew Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an appropriate check on ministerial abuse should be established within the Standing Orders of the Regulatory Reform Committee, to the effect that it should have a clear and unambiguous duty to determine whether something is an inappropriate use of delegated legislation? Is not that the solution?

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has come up with a very good idea. My idea was that the House authorities might like to advise the Chair of the Committee. The Minister might be able to consider a proposition that falls between the two. If we are not to be offered anything like that from the Treasury Bench—and it appears that we are not—I may find myself agreeing with my Front-Bench colleagues, who are minded to support amendment (a) to put a bit of pressure on the Government. However, it would be much better if the Government and the House authorities—perhaps the Leader of the House could bring them together—came up with a solution that gave us more confidence than amendment No. 9 but fell short of the court-driven system proposed by the Liberal Democrats. Ultimately, I would probably prefer to have another check against the Executive, because it is imperative that the accelerated procedure should not be used on constitutional matters.

Andrew Turner: I have listened with great care to the arguments that have been advanced. Amendment No. 9 is of course welcome, but we must examine whether it is adequate. On amendment (a), rhetoric has been used on both sides of the argument. The Government and their supporters allege that this is a battle between Parliament and the judges, while the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), ably supported by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), allege that it is a battle between Parliament and the Executive. Conservative Members must come down on one side or the other, or sit on our hands. I very much agree that where we can delay a decision that is wrongly taken by a Minister, it is appropriate to provide Parliament with that additional weapon. That is how, in a minimalist way, I would describe amendment (a). I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome in putting all my trust in judges, which is certainly not the policy of Conservative Front Benchers. Unless I hear something better from the Treasury Bench than we have heard so far, I propose to support the amendment.

Patrick McFadden: I will endeavour to be brief in summing up the debate on a couple of key issues. First, as the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cambridge (David Howarth) said, the courts can be involved even without the amendment. I acknowledged that in my opening remarks, but the difference between us is about the grounds. That remains a difference that we cannot accommodate, so we cannot agree to the amendment tonight. One reason was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who pointed out that the amendment's proponents tended to ignore the protections already in the Bill—trial by jury, for example, which could not be abolished because of the necessary protections of rights and freedoms in the Bill.

David Howarth: rose—

Patrick McFadden: I really must continue. I believe that in respect of the presentation of the amendment, we have seen a downplaying, if not an ignorance, of the protections in the Bill.
	Let me deal with the matter of the ScotlandAct 1998. It was not exempt from the 2001 Act and it has remained for a further five years without any of the constitutional consequences that were mentioned taking place. The UK Government did not say to the Scottish Executive that the Scotland Act 1998 would be exempt—and let me also say that Government Members care deeply about the devolution settlement. We legislated to bring about the devolution settlement— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who suggests that we are imperilling the devolution settlement, is wrong. As I said, we believe in and care about that settlement. It is the hon. Gentleman's party that puts the devolution settlement and the Scotland Act 1998 under far greater peril than any regulatory reform order ever could. He will stand in an election next year, committed to ripping up the ScotlandAct 1998 and ripping up the United Kingdom. That is one reason why I cannot accept the idea of him as a guardian of the devolution settlement. Government Members, as I said, legislated for it and believe in it, so we will not imperil it through this legislation.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That consequential amendment (a) be made— [Mr. Heath].
	 The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 298.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Taxation

Lords amendment: No. 18.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 19.

Patrick McFadden: We mentioned the matters covered by the amendments earlier, so I shall be brief. Clause 6 restricts the powers in clauses 1 and 2. It prevents an order from imposing or increasing taxation. Concerns were raised on Report in the Commons and in Committee in the other place that, unamended, the Bill would leave it open for a Minister, by order, to reduce or remove taxation. As with several other matters that we have discussed, it was not the intention that orders should be used to reduce or remove taxation. Other parliamentary mechanisms have always been in place for dealing with taxation, but amendment No. 18 makes it clear that an order under part 1 cannot be used to impose, abolish or vary any tax.
	The second amendment concerns potential tax liabilities that could arise from the merger of regulators. When transferring regulatory functions from one regulator to another, it may be necessary also to make provision in an order to transfer assets and liabilities from the old to the new regulator. In certain circumstances, without further provision, a transfer could result in inappropriate tax consequences for the transferor or transferee body which would arise solely because of the transfer.

John Redwood: If the amendment were carried, would it still be possible under this accelerated procedure to abolish a regulator or a regulatory requirement that might include a fee or licence charge?

Patrick McFadden: I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
	The amendment addresses the unwanted consequences that might arise from the transfers that I have just described. It will allow the Treasury to make tax provision by regulations in relation to a transfer of property, rights and liabilities under an order under part 1. This power will enable the Treasury to make appropriate tax provision at the appropriate time to ensure that a transfer does not give rise to a tax charge, or confer a tax advantage, on either party. It is unlikely that the powers will be used often; they will be used only in the unusual instance that a merger is being pursued by order which involves the transfer of such property, right and liabilities. I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.

David Heath: I welcome Lords amendment No. 18. It makes precisely the point that we made in Committee. I apologise to the House for the repetitive nature of these exchanges, but we have to keep saying to the Government, "We told you so." We did make a point about this matter in Committee. It was also made very forcefully on Report by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when he said that taxes could go down as well as up—although that does not happen often—and that this provision was therefore necessary.
	However, the Minister has coupled the provision with Lords amendment No. 19, which deals with tax variation in respect of any changes in function. Presumably that relates to clause 2, which provides for amending the constitution of regulatory bodies. The Minister simply cannot get away with saying that this is a consequence of Lords amendment No. 18, or that the provision should not have been there in the first place in order to deal with the tax variation that should have been present in respect of changes of function for bodies and for transfers of liabilities. There was clearly an omission. That is why we had to have the Ways and Means resolution earlier. This is indicative of the way in which the Bill has been brought in. There have been gross errors and omissions by the Government all the way through. Happily, most of them—I hope all of them, but I have no confidence in that—have been corrected during the passage of the Bill. That is why it is so important that we do our work of scrutinising Bills in this Chamber effectively, as I believe we have done in this case.

John Redwood: As someone who would dearly love to see some taxes abolished, I accept the normal form for doing that. Unfortunately, we have an annual Finance Bill, and it is an increasingly large Bill under this Government. It gives them ample legislative opportunity to make changes to taxes. I would like to press the Minister a little further on surrogate taxation or quasi-taxation. In the regulatory world, many regulators now have the power to impose all sorts of regulatory costs on businesses, individuals, institutions and families, and even to impose direct fees or charges. I would like the reassurance that we shall be able to deregulate, in the sense of getting rid of part or all of a particular regulator and their task, rather than just removing the indirect regulatory costs. Shall we be able to remove the direct fees and charges involved? They should not be deemed to be a tax, under these amendments.

Patrick McFadden: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to clarify this issue for the right hon. Gentleman. The prohibition on an order reducing tax would not stop an order reducing fees, including fees charged by a regulator, for example.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 17
	 — 
	Negative resolution procedure

Lords amendment: No. 30.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 34.

Patrick McFadden: The amendments deal with an issue that is close to the heart of many right hon. and hon. Members who debated the Bill in its earlier parliamentary stages. They fulfil our commitment, made on Second Reading in the other place, to look again at the criteria for the parliamentary Committees' statutory veto. That issue was debated earlier in our proceedings. The Lords amendments will allow Committees of both Houses to block proposals on any grounds and under any of the three procedures: negative, affirmative or super-affirmative.

Andrew Miller: This issue has been bubbling around during the time my hon. Friend has been dealing with the Bill and before that. For the avoidance of doubt, will he give the House a clear assurance that time will be set aside by the Government to enable us to debate the necessary amendments to the standing orders of the Regulatory Reform Committee?

Patrick McFadden: I hesitate to make promises about parliamentary time. My hon. Friend will be awarethat that matter is not solely under my control. I hope that he will acknowledge, however, that the approach that we have taken so far has been to consult the relevant Select Committee Chairs on these issues. I hope to carry forward these matters in that spirit. I also hope that he will understand that it would be unwise of me to make any further promises this evening.

Andrew Turner: Before the Minister gave way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), he said that this would be a matter for both Houses. Did he mean to say "either House"?

Patrick McFadden: Yes, that is correct. I meant that the amendment will allow Committees of either House to exercise their veto.
	It is vital that we strike the right balance betweenthe order-making powers in the Bill and effective safeguards. We hope that, by framing the veto in this way, we will ensure that the relevant parliamentary Committees are equipped with a workable and effective mechanism, should they oppose any proposed orders.
	Lords amendment No. 30 makes a drafting change to clause 17 to clarify that, where orders are subject to the negative resolution procedure, the effect of exercising the veto is that the Minister cannot make the order. I commend the amendments to the House.

David Heath: The word "veto" is not entirely appropriate in this case. It is a parliamentary caveat, which enables the House to take a decision, but it is nevertheless an important mechanism, which I welcome.
	I particularly welcome the removal of the criteria that were to have been applied to Committees when exercising their discretion. That was an abhorrent suggestion. It is bizarre to say that Ministers should not be subject to the courts when they determine what is an appropriate matter for the procedure, but that a Committee of the House, of all things, should be. A criterion in statute, which would potentially be enforced by a judicial review, has now been removed—I do not need the Minister to tell me that, because I know that. Had it remained, however, one of the consequences would have been that we would be partly repealing the Bill of Rights, which most of us would have preferred not to do. I therefore welcome the Government's volte face.

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman is being a trifle unfair. Does not he accept that giving the Committees a statutory veto was an important statement that Parliament has a strong role in such matters? It was a commitment to a proper balance between ministerial recommendation and parliamentary scrutiny. The Government deserve credit for recognising the proper role and powers of Select Committees in that way.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but the Government would have had considerably more credit had they not told us before the Bill was even published that there would be that veto, as he describes it, which they did not put into the Bill when we were first asked to consider it. They were then forced by the majorities in the other place to ensure a proper regard for the rights of the House. That is not the best way of doing business.
	As we reach the last moments of our consideration of the Bill, however, let us not be churlish. Let us accept that the Minister has listened to what we have had to say in many respects and that, as a result, the Bill is better than it would otherwise have been. Had he not listened, the Bill would have been a disaster. Now, although I am not sure that it is the most significant Bill in the world, it is not a disaster.

John Redwood: It is a great pity that once again we do not have enough time to have a civilised, sensible debate about an important underlying issue, over-regulation, and ways in which it might be tackled.
	I support the Lords amendment, and it is right that there should be as much of a parliamentary check as possible in a world in which Ministers normally command majorities and can therefore rightly carry their wishes in a democratic format. It is good that it has been recognised that we need to—
	 It being two hours after commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders[9 February, 15 May and this day].
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Service Voters' Registration Period Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 19th October, be approved. —[Mr. Cawsey.]
	 Question agreed to.

ARMED FORCES BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the ArmedForces Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of12th December 2005 (Armed Forces Bill (Programme)):
	Consideration of Lords Message
	1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	2. Proceedings on consideration of any Lords Message that may be received shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	3. The proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely any Lords Amendments relating to pardons for servicemen executed for offences committed during the First World War, any other Lords Amendments.
	Subsequent stages
	4. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	5. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 Question agreed to.

Armed Forces Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 55 to the Armed Forces Bill. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 51.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 65.

Derek Twigg: Before I start my speech on the amendments, and with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our sincere condolences to the friends and family of the soldier from the 2nd Battalion Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who died in Iraq yesterday.
	The issue of pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war is most important, and one in which many in the House have a great interest. I am therefore pleased that there is an opportunity to debate the subject for the first time since we tabled our amendment to the Bill in the other place. I am sure that hon. Members will be conscious of the widespread public feeling and support for pardons for servicemen executed during the terrible circumstances of the first world war. As the House will be aware, the Government have given the issue a great deal of consideration over the years, taking note of the many opinions offered.
	During a review in 1997, the then Armed Forces Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), considered the possibility of pardons under the royal prerogative. His review concluded that it was unlikely that many, if any, of the individual cases would pass the standard tests for prerogative pardons. The quality of the surviving evidence was an important factor in reaching that conclusion. However, my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement was able to announce on Second Reading in the Lords, on 14 June this year, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had decided to re-examine the issue of pardons for first world war soldiers.
	The Government believe that the time is now right to remove the dishonour that still taints the memory of those servicemen who were executed, which, clearly, is still deeply felt by their families today. Now, almost90 years after the end of the first world war, it is time for us to recognise that execution was not a fate that those soldiers deserved—

Andrew Robathan: This subject is fraught with difficulty. The Minister has referred to the terrible circumstances of the first world war— circumstances that none of us can understand. All that happened before the parents of most of us were born. Does not the Minister think that, notwithstanding the unhappiness, we should understand that we cannot make judgments on what happened 90 years ago—any more than we can on what happened 100, 200 or 300 years ago—and try to rewrite history?

Derek Twigg: I am aware of the strong argument that the hon. Gentleman makes, and that others Members and people in the media will make and have made. However, I want to develop my argument in relation to removing the dishonour and stigma, with reference to the historical aspect.

Andrew Murrison: No mention is made in the amendment of the 2,700 servicemen whose sentences were commuted and who faced a substantial period of hard labour, which was certainly life-shortening. Logically, therefore, the amendment should also deal with those individuals, but it does not. Why should that be?

Derek Twigg: First, in response to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), we are not rewriting history. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), clearly, there is a particular dishonour in relation to those soldiers who suffered execution, which is why we are dealing with that particular group.

Julian Lewis: rose—

Derek Twigg: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall develop my speech a little further.
	As I said, the Government believe that the time is now right to remove the dishonour that taints the memory of those servicemen who were executed, which is clearly still felt by their families today. We should never forget the courage, resolve and sacrifice of those who fought for this country in the first world war.Of course, we will remember them during this Remembrance week. The legacy and impact of the first world war on so many families is difficult to overestimate. My grandfather, Thomas Twigg, of the King's Shropshire Light Infantry, was awarded the military medal for repeatedly going out under machine gun and mortar fire, acting as a stretcher bearer with another, and rescuing many wounded comrades, himself being wounded in the leg.
	The poignancy of the situation deepened when, in 1917, coming back from the front line, he met his brother James. It was the last time that he would see him. James was badly wounded, and died a few weeks later. Every year, on Remembrance Sunday, from where I stand at the Widnes war memorial, I can see the name of my grandfather.
	I mention that story to make a point. Neither my father, with whom I have had many discussions about the issue, nor I believes that granting a pardon to those who were executed besmirches in any way the memory of my grandfather or my great uncle.
	The Government believe that closure can be achieved by the amendment, but I stress that we are not calling into question the actions of the officers who were responsible for discipline and who found themselves faced with what I am sure Members agree was a most difficult and unenviable duty. The amendment should not be seen as a judgment of the way in which they were doing their duty.

Julian Lewis: The problem that I have intellectually with what the Minister proposes is that he is going to let the convictions stand, and pardon people purely because they were executed. That explains why the 2,700 who were not executed are not being pardoned, whereas the 300 who were executed are being pardoned. I am not sure how that will remove the stigma. Surely the stigma results from conviction rather than execution. If I were a member of one of the families concerned who thought that my ancestor had been wrongly convicted because, for example, he had had shell shock, it would not encourage me to know that his conviction stood and he was being pardoned only because of the severity of the sentence, not because of the injustice of the conviction.

Derek Twigg: I understood the point that the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) made earlier about that issue, but anyone who talked to the families and those who have been campaigning would see how important the decision is to removing the stigma and dishonour associated with execution.
	The Government do not see this as an attempt to rewrite history by quashing convictions or sentences. The pardon does not do that. Our amendment avoids the difficulties that would arise from assessing each individual case under the prerogative. As I have said, its aim is to lift the stigma that has been associated with the executions for far too long, and has affected the soldiers' families most deeply.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The matter is of grave concern to a number of my constituents who had a relative who was summarily killed. They greet this day with great relief, and fully support what my hon. Friend is saying.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I know how much work she has put into her campaign on behalf of her constituents.
	The pardon covers all servicemen executed for offences such as desertion and cowardice committed between 4 August 1914 and 11 November 1918. Regrettably, we have not been able to list individually the names of those receiving the pardon, as our surviving records are not sufficiently comprehensive.

Bob Spink: The Minister is a very generous gentleman. He opened a war memorial in my constituency a week or so ago. Both my father and my grandfather fought, one in the Great War and the other in the second world war, and they both suffered. I know for certain that if they were alive they would be delighted with what the Government are doing, and would want to pass on their thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the fulfilment of whose campaign we are seeing today. The House should honour him as well.

Derek Twigg: The hon. Gentleman reflects a common view, not least among many ex-servicemen and veterans. It was a great pleasure to visit his constituency recently to support the opening of the war memorial. I know of the tremendous work that he did to establish the memorial, along with the local community, and it was an excellent day.

Henry Bellingham: The key to this decision has obviously been the shell shock that was beyond the control of those soldiers. Is the Minister aware that of the 346 who were shot at dawn, five were shot for disobedience of a lawful order, including a member of the Royal Anglian Regiment who disobeyed four separate lawful orders on four separate occasions? In fact, he deserted before he even faced a bullet. For disciplinary reasons and, I believe, quite rightly, he was sentenced to death. Why should those people be pardoned as well?

Derek Twigg: As I have said, there is an issue relating to conviction for wrongdoing and, obviously, disciplinary procedures, but let me return to what we are proposing in relation to the ultimate sentence, execution, and the removal of dishonour from that sentence.
	Subject to the will of Parliament, we will place a formal record of the pardon alongside the relevant court martial files held in the National Archives, where they survive. The record will be visible to anyone viewing those files in the future. I believe that it will play an important part in helping to restore the memory of those service men.
	In Committee in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Drayson explained why the Government had announced their decision to seek a statutory pardon during the recess. We made our announcement at the earliest possible opportunity following completion of our policy review, so that we could begin the necessary consultation and drafting of an amendment. I am sure the House will agree that once we had reached a decision, and given the age of some of those campaigning for pardons, it was only right for the Government not to delay further on this important matter until another opportunity arose in the legislative timetable. For the same reason, we intend the pardon to take effect as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.
	The subject of pardons is highly emotive. I know from my postbag that the public feel passionately about it. I also know of the considerable interest that Parliament has taken in the matter, demonstrated by the number of Members who are present today. It is right that I should pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and to all other Members who have campaigned tirelessly for a pardon for first world war soldiers. The family of Private Farr—who have been strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)— and many others have been part of the campaign for pardons, and I salute the role that they have played in the process.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend give particular thanks for the work done by John Hipkin? John was one of my constituents when I was a councillor on Newcastle city council. He worked tirelessly on this issue, and was tenacious not only in his campaign but in gaining publicity for it. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the work that John has done.

Derek Twigg: Many people have worked tirelessly, but I particularly recognise the work that John Hipkin did.
	Lord Mayhew of Twysden spoke in support of the amendment in Committee in the House of Lords. In a particularly poignant contribution, he said:
	"It is not necessary to take special account of the extreme youth of so many of these soldiers, nor the fact that many of them had volunteered to serve, sometimes falsifying their age to do so. There is quite enough already to show that the humane and just, as well as the constitutionally sound, course is not to overturn the convictions, not to overturn the sentences, not to impugn the decisions of the Commander-in-Chief, but to effect posthumous pardons for these unhappy men."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 424.]
	This week we remember those service men and women who sacrificed their lives while serving their country in time of war. The first world war claimed many millions of lives, and I believe it is appropriate for us to take this opportunity to recognise some of the other victims of that war, namely those who were executed. I trust that the House will feel able to support the amendment, and bring closure to all the families who have had to live with the stigma of these executions in the period since the first world war.

Gerald Howarth: I join the Minister in paying tribute to the soldier from the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who has tragically lost his life in Iraq. I am sure that the Minister reflected the views of the entire House in sending our condolences to his family.
	No one can approach this subject without being moved by the terrible human tragedy involved in the cold execution of soldiers by their brothers-in-arms in the midst of one of the most epic battles in history. No one has done more than the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in bringing the issue before the House, as he has done persistently and tenaciously for the past 13 years. I suspect that in the fullness of time this will come to be known as the Mackinlay amendment.
	As Colonel John Hughes-Wilson wrote in the journal of the Royal United Services Institute:
	"There can be no one who is not moved by the chilling reality of soldiers, often young men who had volunteered to serve their King and country, being tied to a stake, blindfolded and shot by a firing squad, sometimes by comrades from their own regiment. It is an image that has entered the national consciousness and which tugs at the heart of any decent person."
	Having said that, it is our duty as parliamentarians to look as objectively and sensitively as we can at the facts and to assess whether the action proposed by the Government in granting blanket pardons is correct, as that inevitably will have the effect of exonerating those who may well be deserving, but will also include those who, by any judgment, are not so deserving. In particular, I submit that we need to exercise great care in applying today's standards to the conditions and mores of a century ago.
	The facts are as stated by the Under-Secretary. As the Secretary of State's predecessor, the current Home Secretary, pointed out to the House on 24 July 1998, between 4 August 1914 and 31 March 1920, approximately 20,000 personnel were convicted of military offences for which the death penalty could have been awarded. That does not include civilian capital offences such as murder. Of those 20,000, something over 3,000 were actually sentenced to death. Approximately 90 per cent. of them escaped execution and 306 were actually executed. Each and every one of those is a personal tragedy for the soldiers, their families and their descendants. However, it is just1.5 per cent. of all those charged with a capital offence.
	Given that this measure is the brainchild of the Secretary of State, many hon. Members will be surprised that he has decided not to present the arguments for bringing it before the House, but has left it to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, a brand new Minister. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to explain why he has chosen not to—[ Interruption.] The House will note that the Secretary of State does not want to answer.
	What has struck me as so curious in this case is the speed with which the Secretary of State, who freely acknowledged that he approached his new position with virtually no experience of Her Majesty's armed forces, rushed to a judgment so soon after taking over. Given his lack of experience and the fact that he had to brief himself on the workings of the MOD at a time when we are conducting two major concurrent military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, how could he find the time to assess an issue that deserves very careful consideration?
	The Secretary of State's predecessor had undertaken just such a review in less hectic times. As he said in his statement to the House in 1998:
	"The review has been a long and complicated process."
	He reported that he had reviewed every aspect of the cases, including the medical evidence and the legal basis for the trials—field general courts martial. In respect of the medical records, he said that there was no implicit or explicit reference to any nervous or other psychological disorders. The review had also confirmed that procedures for the courts martial were correct, given the law as it stood at the time. He concluded:
	"However frustrating, the passage of time means that the grounds for a blanket legal pardon on the basis of unsafe conviction just do not exist. We have therefore considered the cases individually."—[ Official Report, 24 July 1998; Vol. 316,c. 1372.]
	Many are questioning how the Secretary of State came so swiftly to such a contrary position to that of his predecessor, a noted historian who had considered the issue in great detail.

Kevan Jones: I thought that it was too good to last and that the hon. Gentleman might welcome something that the Government have put forward. Will he say whether he supports what the Government are doing, or will we just have the continued attack on the Secretary of State?

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had the pleasure of serving on the Defence Committee, knows me well enough to know that he will have to wait, for my speech is designed to be taken as a whole.
	Many are questioning how the Secretary of State came to such a contrary conclusion to that of his predecessor. Did he consult his predecessor before making his eye-catching announcement? Shall I give way to the Secretary of State? Has he found evidence that was denied to his predecessor? The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) said in a debate earlier this year that he had found no new evidence. I can only assume that the Secretary of State has found none either.
	Has the Secretary of State obtained compelling new legal advice from the Attorney-General, or from anyone else? Clearly not, according to the noble Lord Drayson, who explained in another place:
	"It is clearly not a traditional prerogative pardon. Unlikea prerogative pardon this measure does not quash convictionsor lift sentences ."—[Official Report, House of Lords,12 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 430.]
	We are entitled to ask what it does do.

Andrew Robathan: I do not want to make a cheap point but, as my hon. Friend knows, I am not convinced that this is an entirely wise move. Previous Labour Governments will have looked at this. Does my hon. Friend think that the total lack of experience of military life in the present Labour Government has led to the measure being proposed now, as opposed to 20, 30 or 50 years ago under other Labour Governments?

Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend poses a perfectly legitimate question to which I do not know the answer. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly give his justifications. His junior Minister has done so and, in welcoming him belatedly to his post, may I say that he did so extremely well and with great sensitivity? However, one is entitled to ask: if the measure does not quash the conviction or lift the sentence, what doesit do?
	The Under-Secretary said that the aim was to lift the stigma. Many would argue that the stigma has already been removed as the passage of time and changing values have cast in a new light the tragic deaths of those young men, although, self-evidently, not for a number of the families involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, what about the stigma attached to those 2,700 who were convicted and sentenced to death, but who in the end had their sentences commuted?
	We have to consider whether there is a downside to this move by the Government. It is important that we in this House consider these matters carefully and look at the full implications of what has been proposed.

Peter Bottomley: I am interested in my hon. Friend's speech. Is the matter not summed up by the Lords amendment, which refers to
	"recognition as victims of First World War"?
	Does my hon. Friend remember previous junior Defence Ministers answering debates in the House who were pretty well mauled by the House as a whole, which was arguing for recognition such as is being proposed this evening?

Gerald Howarth: I am acutely aware of the sensitivity of the issue. The right hon. Member for Islwyn said that he hoped we could find a solution. He was not able to do so when he was in the Department. Clearly, there is an issue, but we have to consider whether there are downsides to the proposal. Ministers have repeatedly asserted that they are not aiming to rewrite history, but many fear that this will create a precedent and are in no way reassured by the familiar Whitehall mantra that there are "no plans" to extend the pardon to other campaigns, as Lord Drayson has said.
	Is it really beyond belief that others shot for desertion during some other battle will not become the object of a further campaign, or that other nations might not seize upon this precedent to demand apologies for acts of war? How would Ministers like to be the subject of future generations' judgment on the management of the Iraq war, including their decisions on preparation, deployment and tactics—judged not by today's standards, but in circumstances and according to values that we cannot yet anticipate?
	The decision
	"could create precedents for the future and it cannot but have the effect of impugning the judgment of the people who made those very difficult decisions at the time. It cannot but have the effect of revisiting history, which is very dangerous, and putting the gloss and judgments of today on decisions made in conditions which we cannot in our time and at this distance make proper judgments about." —[ Official Report, House of Lords,12 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 430.]
	These are not my words; they were the words ofLord Ashdown in another place on 12 October. Undoubtedly, it was an extremely fair point.

George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth: I give way to my right hon. namesake.

George Howarth: Did not my hon. Friend the Minister make it clear that he was decoupling the decisions made at the time from the decision today to provide a blanket pardon to those affected? By so doing, he is in no way impugning the judgment of the officers who made those decisions in the difficult circumstances of the time.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should think carefully about that because, whatever the Minister said, the fact is that the interpretation will be that the Government are impugning the judgments made at the time. There can be no lifting of the sentences or quashing of the convictions. The amendment will simply address a sensitivity, which may be worth achieving.
	The Government have specifically ruled out the payment of compensation, but as we have read in  The Daily Telegraph today, claims have already been submitted. Even if the Secretary of State is successful in resisting those claims in our courts, how long will it be before the European Court of Human Rights is invited to interfere? Can Ministers assure the House that in the event of any reference to the ECHR and a subsequent finding in favour of compensation, the Government will reject that?
	In considering the humanitarian aspects of the issue, we also need to be clear that military discipline is vital at all times, but especially in battle. That is why we have joined the Government in resisting attempts to water down today's penalties for desertion, which can put a soldier's comrades at mortal risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) so eloquently explained on Report.

David Burrowes: Does my hon. Friend find it interesting that during the extensive evidence sessions on the Bill before the Defence Committee, and in the many visits it made, no one made the case strongly for the amendment?

Gerald Howarth: Indeed. My hon. Friend and I were on the Committee and we met people who were on active operations. They recognise the importance of discipline. We do not have the death penalty for military operations today, and that is right and proper and reflects the mores of our times. With this amendment, we are dealing with a different society with different mores. That is why we joined the Government in resisting attempts in the other place to water down the penalty for desertion.
	It is right and proper that we subject the Government's proposals to scrutiny, and that is what we have sought to do. However, as we approach the nation's annual service of remembrance we should, and shall, reflect on the courage and sacrifice of those who have fought and died for these islands, for our wider interests and for the values that we hold dear, and those who continue today to lay their lives on the line for our country. Among those whom we remember will be the victims of harsh judgments made in good faith by good men of their day, often in the heat and smoke of battle. If the amendment brings consolation to the families of those victims, it is a welcome benefit. However, in the interests of justice and for the proper understanding of history, let this be a one-off—a unique—case.

Don Touhig: It is indeed timely that in this week before 11 November we debate the amendment granting a pardon to 306 of our soldiers shot at dawn in the first world war. Each year, on 11 November, we stand as a nation in silence, mourning and remembrance for all those who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country during that bloody, awful war and the conflicts that followed. The people of these islands are a free people today thanks to our war dead. That is a debt we can never repay. We honour their memory and recognise them for the heroes that they are. They have earned the eternal gratitude of the British people.
	However, for others no glory is attached to their memory. They have been banished to the fringes of history, their lives forgotten except, perhaps, by their grieving families. They were branded as cowards and traitors, blindfolded and shot at dawn by their own side. Between 1914 and 1920, some 350 men from the United Kingdom, what is now Ireland and what is now the Commonwealth, were executed for capital offences. Seven were Welsh, the youngest of whom was 19. Of the 350, 306 were executed for the military offencesof desertion or attempted desertion, cowardice, disobedience, leaving a post, sleeping at a post, casting away arms or striking a superior officer—all offences listed in the amendment.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, sought a way to pardon the 306 who were shot. As has been mentioned, he concluded that there should not be a pardon for some and not others, and he was right. When he became Secretary of State for Defence in 2005, and I was appointed Under-Secretary, it fell to me to examine the matter further, not least because of the case brought by the family of Private Harry Farr and the concerns expressed by Members of both Houses. I looked at four possible options and I concluded that the only feasible option was a legislative pardon. Before I left the MOD, and with the full support of my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, I set in train work to prepare for this legislation.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who came into the job in May and immediately set about taking forward that legislative pardon, which is why we have the amendment today. My right hon. Friend has acted with courage and determination and he has taken a step that others may have been reluctant to take. I also join the appreciation on both sides of the House for my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who has been determined and persistent in ensuring that the matter did not go away but came regularly beforethe House. I also know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, received several representations on the issue and I know that he also welcomes the amendment.
	This decision is not an easy one for Parliament to take. I have met ex-servicemen who are totally opposed to the idea of a pardon, feeling that those who were shot at dawn had let down their comrades. Others take a contrary view and, with their vivid and often terrible memories of life in the trenches, believe that it is time to pardon the 306.

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman listed several offences for which people would be pardoned. He left out the offence of mutiny and sedition, for which two or three of the soldiers on the list were executed. That offence is not linked to cowardice and the Army Act 1881 makes no mention of shell shock or cowardice. That offence is severely damaging to troops in the field, so is he concerned that those found guilty of it will also be pardoned?

Don Touhig: That point is covered in the amendment and if the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will refer to it in a broader sense later in my speech.
	If the amendment is passed, as I hope it is, it should not be seen as a reflection of the failure of those who presided at and conducted the field courts martial that condemned the 306 to a firing squad. Those who presided were doing the duty required of them. They held the King's commission to prosecute a war. They had to maintain discipline and administer military justice as the law of that time prescribed. In my view, they acted properly and honourably in the discharge of that duty.
	Some will say that the amendment will rewrite history and judge the actions of 1914 by today's standards. That is a perfectly reasonable argument, although I do not accept it because I do not believe that the amendment condones cowardice, desertion, mutiny or assisting the enemy, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) suggested a moment ago. Military discipline was and remains the cornerstone of our armed forces' behaviour. However, the amendment is necessary as a recognition of the fact that many—I accept not all—of those shot were suffering from mental illnesses, of which people at the time knew very little.
	I have had meetings with the families of some of the men who were shot and I was touched by their quiet determination to see those men pardoned. They were motivated by nothing more than a wish to see their loved ones remembered, without shame, alongside the tens of thousands of others who went to war in September 1914 full of high spirits and pride, but who never came back. I pay tribute to the families' quiet dignity, as many have lived with the terrible stigma associated with having a father, grandfather or great-grandfather going bravely off to war only to be shot by his own side.
	The amendment will not ease the pain and heartache that the verdict of the field courts martial caused, but I hope that, in time, it will be seen as having put right a terrible wrong. It is all too easy to forget that the soldiers of the first world war had none of the modern world's benefits of free education and health care. Most of the accused were poorly educated, working-class young men: often, they were inarticulate and illiterate, with no ability to represent themselves in a tense court room where life or death was at stake. If all the young men who stood trial were medically examined according to the standards of care enjoyed by our soldiers today, I am sure that the result would not have been that 306 of them were shot.
	No one can turn back the clock. The passage of time means that we are left with only the records of the cases, most of which make no reference to the mental or nervous illnesses from which the soldiers were suffering. This week, we will remember our war dead. I hope that, as a country, we can at long last find it in our hearts to pardon and pay our respects to all the young men who lost their lives on the foreign battle fields of the first world war. Whether they were shot by the enemy or by their own side, all were victims of a terrible and bloody war.

Nick Harvey: This is a very delicate matter, and in the debate so far we have heard two different sides of the argument. It has taken us a long time to get where we are today, and I want to join those who have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for the persistence with which he has campaigned on this issue.
	The two sides of the argument are clear. Some look at the events leading to the executions and call into question how matters were handled at the time. Indeed, many people call into question the conduct of many aspects of the first world war. In contrast, we have heard that others believe that meddling in these matters is an attempt to rewrite history.
	I believe that the Government have wrestled with the balance of the argument and that they have come to the right conclusion. The logic of the convictions was articulated by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and one can see how lifting them would bring more comfort and satisfaction, but that really would be an attempt to rewrite history. The same is true of lifting the sentence: although I abhor the capital sentences that were handed down, they were the sentences that applied to such offences at the time. We cannot go back over history and lift the sentences or query the convictions. We cannot remove the pain that followed for those who lost family members in that way—a pain that descendants have continued to endure in the decades since.
	What we can do is to acknowledge and recognise history, with the benefit of the greater knowledge and understanding that we now have of post-traumatic stress disorder. Almost a century later, we as a nation cannot rewrite history or undo the pain, but our modern comprehension means that we can understand, forgive and pardon. The Government deserve credit for getting the delicate balance in this matter right. The Secretary of State deserves credit for making a relatively rapid decision in this matter. I do not condemn or criticise him for that, as he has showed a willingness to make other decisions rapidly—notablyin procurement, and I think that he deserves commendation for that as well.
	The Government have come to the right conclusion in this difficult matter. However, I echo the hope that it will not form a general precedent and that the circumstances will be recognised as unique.

Andrew MacKinlay: I have been in Parliament for 14 years, and this evening's debate will probably turn out not to be the most important of my political career. However, supporting this amendment is certainly my proudest moment in the House of Commons. I hope that the House will forgive me if I explain why, as that will buttress the case for the amendment.
	First, though, let me say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence framed and introduced the amendment in a moving and sensitive way. In addition, I very much welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whom I congratulate without reservation. As we have heard, the measure will grant pardons to soldiers executed in world war one after being charged with crimes such as cowardice, desertion, sleeping at their posts, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer.
	For me, this is a very important personal occasion, and my arguments have both spiritual and temporal elements. Spiritually, I was reminded as I prepared for the debate of the words of psalm 130:
	"Out of the depths I have cried to thee, O lord.
	Lord hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplication."
	I believe that there has been a cry from heaven for this wrong to be remedied, and that is what this House of Commons will do this evening, on behalf of the nation.
	On the more practical side, I must tell the House that soon after I was first elected I went to Tynecot cemetery to look for the grave of one of the soldiers executed in world war one. At that stage, very little had been written about what happened, apart from one very good book by his honour Judge Anthony Babington, and the great work entitled "Shot at Dawn" by Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes, which details all the executions.
	I wanted to place on record my recognition of what my studies of those executions had taught me, and I put down an early-day motion calling for the men to be pardoned. To my astonishment and surprise, hon. Members right across the House displayed enormous and immediate support in wanting to add their names to the motion, and extensive interest was aroused around the country.
	I understand that some hon. Members may be hesitant about pardoning those who were executed, so I hope that I can offer them some reassurance. Although some people oppose the pardons, the measure is overwhelmingly popular around the country. That does not necessarily make it correct, but that popularity has been shown in the support that has been evident in all parties and in consecutive Parliaments. It has also been evident in support for the Bill proposing the pardons that I have introduced six or seven times while I have been in the House. I welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary; we need this measure now.
	I want to reply to Conservative Members. They are entitled to a response to their arguments. The Bill that I introduced six or seven times did not include mutiny.
	I welcome the amendment because time is now short. I want to deal with the question of whether the measure at this time is still appropriate. I believe that it is, but it will not be for ever. I regret that a Conservative Member shouted out earlier, "What about Agincourt?" As he did so, I will respond to that point. Agincourt demonstrably is history. The first world war is still a live and relevant issue for us, because each and every one of us have known and loved veterans of world war one. Some are still alive today. The immediate dependants of the executed men are still alive today. The issue cannot be dismissed in the way that people might dismiss the American civil war or Agincourt. Referring to Agincourt was a poor shot, and I regret that people have said it.
	The issue is still very relevant. Judging by my postbag and, I suspect, the postbags of other hon. Members, people still see it as relevant. Their letters may refer to their dad, who never spoke about world war one, but towards the end of his life did so and said that he was on a firing squad or saw people suffering from shell shock. That supports the view that pardons should be granted.

Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has campaigned vigorously on this issue; he makes a special case for these world war one people. Does he regard this case as a one-off, or does he feel that there are other cases? Has he been approached by others? What would be his reaction to other cases?

Andrew MacKinlay: I believe that it is a one-off. It is such an outstanding matter and injustice is so grave. We have the opportunity to heal by accepting the amendment. I have shared with the House the fact that this is a proud occasion for me. If I have achieved nothing else in the House of Commons, I shall be proud if the amendment is accepted tonight and receives Royal Assent tomorrow. I see it as a one-off.
	In the Bill that I proposed to the House on seven occasions, I included the options of a blanket pardon or a tribunal of Commonwealth judges to look at each case. I mention that tonight because I am confident that a tribunal would have concluded the same for each case. I say this in response to the legitimate point raised by Conservative Members. People say, "You are surely not suggesting that all these were good men." I believe that a tribunal would have concluded that all the trials were flawed, according not to the rules of today but to the rules that applied then. The rules of natural justice have not just been invented. The rules of natural justice required then, as now, that a person should be able to prepare a defence, call witnesses and be properly represented. Every trial was flawed on those counts. Furthermore, no one was given the opportunity of appealing against their sentence. In none of the trials were the rules of natural justice applied.
	The point was also made that 2,700 people were sentenced to death but only a few were executed. I believe that that demonstrates how fickle was the decision to execute. There was no rhyme or reason to it. It was like a raffle whether or not someone was executed, which then goes to the heart of the principle of justice. Justice has to be consistent and clearly understood. Those who were executed were simply unfortunate in the draw.
	Reference has been made to the Harry Farr case. It has been my privilege to know the widow and daughter of Harry Farr. A gallant lady well into her 90s, Gertie Harris pursued her father's case with the utmost vigour. Certainly the indications are that, had the case come to court, the Ministry of Defence would have lost.

Andrew Robathan: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that he knew the widow of Harry Farr? Surely she would be about 110 by now.

Andrew MacKinlay: I was privileged to know the widow of Harry Farr. In 1993 I spent a whole afternoon with her. As the hon. Gentleman asks, I will tell him. That wonderful old lady, very frail, in her 99th year, had every one of her faculties. She spoke with great pride that for the first time in so long someone was standing up for her Harry. Everyone now recognises that Harry Farr was shell shocked and should never have been executed in October 1916. She and her daughter Gertie suffered penury as a result of that execution. She told me how she bore that great stigma for so long. So I did know her, and I know what I am talking about. I have given some study to this matter.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew MacKinlay: I will give way. I will knock this one down as well.

Andrew Murrison: I do not intend to attack the hon. Gentleman or the case that he is trying to pursue. He has mentioned the daughter and widow of Private Farr, so I presume that he will be disappointed by subsection (4)(b) of the clause that amendment No. 51 would insert, which removes
	"any right, entitlement or liability"
	and therefore confines the measure to gesture politics. It has no substance.

Andrew MacKinlay: It is certainly not gesture politics to the late Gertie Farr or her daughter. They have made it clear time and time again that they want no remuneration or compensation. All that they want is to have the record put straight. That is the view of all the families involved.

Ben Wallace: We have dealt with subsection (4)(b). The widow and daughter of Harry Farr will still be related to a convicted coward. The pardon would not remove that conviction. Is that not a blight on their family?

Andrew MacKinlay: That is not my reading of the legislation, and it is not theirs. They welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State. In any event, I remind the House that I would not start from here. We would have addressed the matter 14 years ago when I first introduced my early-day motion and my Bill. We would have looked at the cases in greater detail.
	During world war one, attempts were made by people like myself in Parliament to raise these executions. They were slapped down and suppressed. There was no candour or debate. The argument was advanced—it had some legitimacy—that the country was in the middle of a conflict. Come the 1920s, the matter was raised by several hon. Members, one of whom was Ernest Thurtle, the Member for Shoreditch. He was slapped down and told that he was wrong.
	The point that cannot be escaped is that for 75 years it suited the British establishment to suppress the documentation relating to these cases. Now that the documents have become available to families, jurors, politicians and journalists and we see how flawed the trials were, people say, "It is too late; it is a matter of history." How very convenient.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that the amendment was not opposed in the other place and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has given half-hearted support to it tonight, yet numerous Conservative Members are clearly opposed to it? Does he believe that, if they feel so strongly, the Conservatives should have amended the Bill in another place or should vote against it tonight?

Andrew MacKinlay: Reference has been made to another place. It cannot be said loudly enough that, among the people who spoke so cogently and clearly in support was a person known to me as Sir Patrick Mayhew, a former Conservative Attorney-General, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, soldier and officer. Lord Campbell of Alloway, a veteran of Colditz, also spoke in favour. In my view, public opinion is overwhelmingly with us; in particular, people who have experienced combat and seen and endured stress support the measure.
	It is perfectly legitimate for Members to question the wisdom of the provision, but it would be wrong if they continued to do so without calling a Division. I understand why they are probing the matter, but I shall welcome the House's unanimous endorsement of the provision, which looks likely. If there is no Division, the decision will be unanimous and that will be the end of the matter. It would be reprehensible if Members who did not divide the House continued to raise objections after the debate, saying that it was wrong to pardon those people.

Henry Bellingham: I respect and admire the hon. Gentleman as a campaigner. He has been absolutely tenacious in this campaign and we all respect that, but if we disagree with some of the detail of the provision we are entitled to probe it, and if the amendment is passed, there will be closure on the issue. During the Boer war, there was the famous case of Breaker Morant, an Australian officer who was shot in extremely controversial circumstances. His family apparently want him to be given a pardon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

Andrew MacKinlay: I am not briefed on Breaker Morant. However, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that case, because I am familiar with the consequences of his execution. After that controversy, 18 years later, the Australian Government made it a condition that none of their soldiers in units serving in the British Empire forces during world war one would be executed. None was, but nobody suggested that the Australian soldiers fought other than like tigers—despite the fact that they did not have the death penalty hanging over them, they still fought like tigers.
	The hon. Gentleman also said, generously, fairly and legitimately, that this debate would be the end of the matter. That is all I ask. Members should by all means probe and argue, but I hope that if they do not divide the House they will acknowledge that they have concurred by their silence and approved the measure.

Peter Bottomley: I do not want to take up time in the debate, but many who see more benefits than disbenefits in the proposal will not make speeches but will be wholeheartedly behind what the hon. Gentleman has been campaigning for and the Government have found a way of achieving.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It has been a cross-party campaign. I regret that no Irish Members are in the Chamber, because the campaign united various sides in Ireland, if only symbolically. Private Crozier from the Shankill and Private Sands from the Falls were both executed in similar circumstances. They were ordinary, poor, inarticulate soldiers, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out. They could not articulate their case and were not represented fairly at their trial. A soldier who was unable to advance when ordered to do so, or who ran away—whether they came from Belfast, Dublin, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, London or elsewhere—was likely to face a court martial and execution. Many officers suffered shell shock, too, but they were likely to be returned to the love and care of their family in England and the best medical attention available. There was unconscious discrimination in the treatment of shell shock.
	The question of history has been raised. One of the consequences of the campaign is not the rewriting of history, but writing a chapter of history that has been suppressed. We spend millions of pounds each year teaching history to schoolchildren and university students, so we need to write it with clarity and precision, including the parts that we find uncomfortable. We are now writing that history. Until 1992, the matter was suppressed. It had been suppressed in Parliament; Ernest Thurtle had been refused access to the papers, which were restricted for 75 years. There were only the books by Judge Anthony Babington and Julian Putkowski.

Julian Lewis: I entirely agree that this is a matter not of rewriting history, but of writing history. However, the correct people to write history are historians, not politicians.

Andrew MacKinlay: I would argue that point: some people who call themselves historians make it up as they go along. Some of us have been scratching away at this matter for some time to try to find the truth. That is what Ernest Thurtle did as a Back-Bench Member and it is what I and others have tried, and will continue, to do. We will make the information available for historians. In any event, Anthony Babington—a distinguished judge—and Julian Putkowski and Julian Sykes did their best, despite the fact that the establishment did not want the matter aired.
	When the Secretary of State indicated to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that a service would be held when we believed that the last Great war veteran had passed on, it was suggested that the nation would draw a line. That is relevant to our debate. Such matters are still relevant to our age, not only because some veterans are still alive and some of their immediate dependants are very much alive, but because we have known and loved people who served in world war one.
	The measure is not ideal—no measure we pass covers all the circumstances—but it is generous and fair. It reflects the will of the nation and I commend it to the House.

Keith Simpson: I am grateful to be allowed to address the House on this subject. I declare a number of interests. First, I am both a historian and a politician. About 30 years ago, when I was writing some books on the first world war I was lucky enough to interview several hundred first world war veterans. I followed closely the work of Julian Putkowski; many years ago, he and I sat in the Imperial War Museum scrabbling away together. He continued as a postgraduate researcher for many years and produced a series of books.
	Secondly, in 1998 I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench in response to the then Minister of State for the armed forces when we held the first parliamentary debate. After looking at the cases of the first world war soldiers who had been executed, he decided that all he could do was to issue a statement of regret. Finally, in January, I introduced a short debate in Westminster Hall on the subject, to which the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) replied.
	Almost every Member in the Chamber is wearing a poppy, and the debate about the executed soldiers has much to do with our national consciousness of the first world war—our guilt and our emotions. That war produced one of the highest numbers of casualties suffered by the British Army and the imperial armies. Our European neighbours had of course been only too conscious of such casualties; we had been fortunate enough never to have suffered to such a degree before.
	From a British perspective, the first world war has somehow been seen as not such a good war as the second world war, which was demonstrably between good and evil. The public's interpretation of the first world war does not stem only from folk memories of their fathers and grandfathers. In many ways, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is correct; it is history, but near history rather than far. Both my grandfathers served in the first world war. Both were wounded, but they survived.
	Certainly, 30 years ago, it was possible to speak to many such veterans. As much as anything else, it all comes down to the fact that the first world war is seen through the prism of the film "Oh! What a Lovely War", and of "Blackadder Goes Forth", which features the caricature figures of General Melchett, Baldrick and others. In its last, most evocative scene, the whole cast, except General Melchett, go out into no man's land, and the scene is then freeze-framed. There is a powerful emotional element to the subject.
	It always struck me, when I talked to the highly professional members of the Army historical branch—I give them great credit for the work that they have done over many years—that the problem is that the record is incomplete, as Ministers know. As the hon. Member for Thurrock says, access to the files was limited for most people, so it is inevitable that there were conspiracy theories about that. The record is incomplete not because it has been weeded, but because of the nature of the war and the nature of some of the field courts martial. Some of the files on individual cases are quite thick, running to 20, 30 or40 sheets of paper. On Private Farr, there are some half a dozen sheets.
	I have concluded that it would be incredibly difficult to ensure a judicial review, in which judges consider each case in turn, although I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock and others were keen on that idea. Such a system would, ultimately, be unfair. I suspect that the judges would clear some people, but that in other cases they would say, "I'm afraid that under the rules that existed at the time, which carried the death penalty, some people probably should have been executed." However, there would have been a great tranche of cases in the middle, on which they would have said, "I'm sorry, but there's insufficient evidence; if we could call witnesses, we could decide." I reluctantly decided that, however logical the suggestion, that was not the way to go about the matter.
	I declare an interest: I have always believed, and still do, that the situation should be left as it is. I can understand why we politicians might want to take a view on past events; after all, the Prime Minister, very soon after taking office, issued a statement of regret about the Irish potato famine. To me, as a historian, that seemed a somewhat simplistic interpretation of what happened, but the Prime Minister had every right to do what he did, although I would have thought it best to leave the matter alone. I have sympathy for the families, and particularly for people who remember what went on, but although we have spent so much time and emotion on the subject—the hon. Member for Thurrock might say, "And so we should"—we tend to forget, marginalise or take for granted the actions of hundreds of thousands of men. Most of those who fought in the first world war were civilians, and not all of them were young—many were in their 30s and 40s; after all, incredibly, the overwhelming majority of soldiers who served in the first world war were volunteers. However, I shall not go down a discursive route and discuss the history of the amazing "pals" battalions, made up of volunteers.
	A significant proportion of soldiers were pre-war regulars, but after 1917 large numbers were, of course, conscripts, so not all soldiers were fresh-faced youths. We should remember that most of them, at different periods in their service, were terrified. When I have talked to veterans of the first and second world wars and of Iraq, and to soldiers in Afghanistan, I have found that they were motivated by many things. Because they are British, they are embarrassed to say that they are fighting for Queen and country, but they will frequently talk about their regiment. Usually, however—and there are hon. Members present who have experience of this—they were motivated by small-group loyalty, which basically comes down to a soldier's sense of being part of a team. Soldiers rarely work as individuals; they are a team, and that is how they survive. They survive because they are part of a team in a mortar section, running a heavy machine gun, or in an armoured fighting vehicle. In normal, civilian life, those team members might not get on well together, but as soldiers they work, live and die together, and if one of them decides to leg it, not only do they let the others down, but somebody else has to take over their duties.
	When I interviewed veterans of the first world war, I found that many were disgusted and horrified that soldiers had been executed by the authorities, but among others, I found a quiet anger that the well-known company shirker always managed to skive off at a difficult moment, which meant that somebody had to take his place on patrol and put their life at risk. That is a very fine balance, and I can only make the following plea: we have spent a great deal of time—obviously, public opinion is that it is important that we should—bearing in mind what happened to the men who were executed. Some of them did not deserve to be executed, some were traditional regimental bad hats, and some were frequent offenders; all were judged and executed under a law in operation at the time. We should also bear in mind the great mass of men who were frightened and frequently tempted to run away, but who, for many reasons, did not do so.
	I remember editing a book 20-odd years ago called "The War the Infantry Knew", which was largely written by a man called Captain J. C. Dunn. He was not a regular soldier; he had served in the yeomanry in the first world war, and won the distinguished conduct medal, then went back to being a doctor. He volunteered in 1915, when he was in his 40s, and served for nearly two years with the 2nd Battalion the Royal Welch Fusiliers. He won the distinguished service order and the military cross and bar. His DSO was the result of a failed Victoria cross application, and he had had both Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves as patients. His diaries document his eventual breakdown; he later found that he could no longer trust himself not to duck when a shell came overhead. His main worry and concern was about showing fear in front of others. He recognised that the way to deal with what they call shell shock was to try to rest soldiers as much as possible. He had a hard-nosed view of desertion. He was one of only two regimental medical officers to give evidence to what was called the shell shock committee. The written evidence that he produced, which is in the Royal Welch Fusiliers museum, is the only evidence submitted to that committee that is still extant, as the evidence was weeded at some stage.
	I was fascinated by the fact that that man, who was in many ways very sensitive, and who was greatly admired by Robert Graves and Siegfried Sassoon, firmly believed that the execution of men convicted of desertion was necessary, not only "pour encourager les autres", but because those people had let down their friends, and that was the most important element.
	The only option other than leaving well alone or judicial review is a blanket pardon. I do not agree with taking that course, but I understand why the Minister has done so. I use my words carefully: it is a political decision—I do not mean a party political decision—such as that made by the New Zealand and Canadian Governments. I have no intention of voting against the Lords amendment, as it represents the will of the other place, but I must say that I do not think that it will bring closure, other than in a parliamentary sense. Debate on the subject will continue. On Remembrance Sunday, at least, we should all remember not only those men who were killed, but those who, like our grandfathers, survived, and did things that most of us would find incredibly difficult to endure.

Mike Hall: May I begin by adding my condolences to those sent by other right hon. and hon. Members to the family of the soldier from the 2nd Battalion of the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment who was killed in Iraq today? I wish to put on the record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Several years ago, I was returning from France when I bumped into him. He had just been on a tour of the battle sites, and he told me about his campaign for men shot at dawn in the first world war. I am delighted that an amendment has been tabled that brings to fruition the work that he and other parliamentarians have undertaken.
	My grandfather, Private PW443 Thomas McBride, served with the 18th Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment in the first world war. On the night of24 May 1917, together with Sergeants Till, Matthews and Ward, he went into no man's land in front of the Hindenburg line to dig a communication trench to the German front positions. They worked in full moonlight for three and a half hours under heavy machine gun fire from the enemy. Fortunately, no one was injured and those soldiers were awarded the military medal for their gallantry and service. Their commanding officer, Second Lieutenant Cecil Harold Wight, was awarded the military cross for supervising the work, and received a pension of five shillings a week.
	Fortunately, no one in the 18th Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment was shot at dawn, so my grandfather did not face the prospect of being called to serve on a firing squad to dispatch summary justice. Of the 306 soldiers shot at dawn in the first world war who are the subject of the Lords amendment, 254 were privates, 15 were riflemen, five were drivers, one was a gunner, one was a drummer, one a labourer, two were sappers, one was a trooper, 4 were sergeants, three were lance sergeants, six were corporals, 11 were lance corporals, one was a second lieutenant and one a first lieutenant. All but two of the 306 soldiers shot at dawn were "other ranks" and non-commissioned officers. The most senior officer shot at dawn was Lieutenant Edwin Leopold Arthur Dyett, who was a volunteer reserve with the Nelson Battalion of the Royal Navy Division. He was the son of May Constance andW. H. R. Dyett of Rock Ferry; his father, too, was a Royal Navy reserve.
	Lieutenant Dyett was executed on 5 January 1917 at the age of 21, and he was buried in the Le Crotoy communal cemetery. In many cases, as has been said, the soldiers who were shot at dawn were suffering from shell shock. I was interested to hear about the shell shock committee in the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). In a war diary by a member of the 18th Battalion of the Middlesex Regiment, the first mention of the condition appears in June 1916, when it is recorded that men were suffering from shell shock—the diary does not elaborate further. Officers who suffered from shell shock were deemed to be not fit for duty, and were returned home, but that was not the case for other ranks. That is an important point.
	We are not close to understanding the full effects of shell shock, but soldiers who suffered from it were subjected to summary justice. They were not properly represented and they were not given leave to appeal. The morning after their court martial, they were bound, blindfolded and had a marker placed overtheir heart. They were tied to a stake and shot by12 members of a firing squad, usually from their own battalion. One soldier was given a blank to fire, so that no one could be sure that they had fired the fatal shot.
	Remarkably, the families and loved ones of the soldiers who were shot at dawn were told their sons had died as war heroes. Their were buried in Commonwealth War Grave Commission cemeteries across northern France and Belgium where their names are recorded, and they are rightly "Remembered with Honour". It is fitting, therefore, that the House should do the right thing and remove the stain on their character.
	The full truth of the executions in the first world war has taken an awfully long time to emerge. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock presented me with a copy of "Shootings at Dawn: The Army Death Penalty at Work" by Ernest Thurtle, who was MP for Shoreditch. The book was published in the 1920s, and the cases it highlights still make for difficult reading. Responding to an intervention, my hon. Friend pointed out that the Australian army did not impose the death penalty for battlefield offences. Anyone who has read Field Marshal Haig's diaries will know that he viewed that as a serious weakness that made it difficult to maintain discipline in the Australian army. However, the lack of a death penalty did not stop the Australians from playing a full part in the eventual allied victory in the first world war.
	I wish to turn to the case of Lance Corporal 13857 James Holland of the 10th Battalion of the Cheshire Regiment, which was part of the 7th Brigade of the 25th Division of the 3rd British Army. Lance Corporal Holland was shot at dawn. On the night of 19 and20 May 1916, the Germans launched a heavy bombardment against the British positions at Berthonval facing Vimy ridge. At 5 am on 21 May, the bombardment intensified. At 3 pm, following a pause, the British front line was once again pummelled by intense enemy shelling, mortar shelling and tear gas. The 10th Battalion of the Cheshire Regiment was stationed at the front line at Berthonval. In a four-hour period, 80 German artillery batteries positioned along a 1,800 m front launched 70,000 shells at the British positions around Berthonval in front of Vimy ridge. That was the heaviest enemy shelling of the war sofar. The British trenches were levelled and all communications were severed. The British artillery replied, but to no effect.
	At 7.45 pm, the Germans blew a mine under the British position, lifted their artillery barrage and directed it at the British support lines. At the same time, the German infantry launched a ground attack across the smashed British defences, and crossed our front line, where they met little resistance. The German infantry secured their objectives. The 10th Battalion of the Cheshire Regiment was tasked with holding the flank of the British position during the German onslaught. On 23 May 1916, the British counter-offensive to re-establish a defence line failed. The Germans anticipated the counter-attack and launched their own artillery barrage of heavy shells against the British lines. The British infantry ground assault scheduled for 8.25 pm was met immediately with German machine gun fire and repulsed before it began.
	On 26 May, the British high command decided that the artillery necessary to support a major offensive to regain our former position on Vimy ridge would be better deployed on the Somme so that our forces would be ready for a planned summer offensive against the Germans. The Germans began to dig in and fortify their positions. The British Army lost 2,500 men between 21 and 24 May 1916. The 7th Brigade ofthe 25th Division lost 637 men. At some time during the German artillery bombardment—the heaviest of the war so far—followed by a German infantry attack, Lance Corporal James Holland left his post. He was found guilty of cowardice by a court martial, and he was shot at dawn on 30 May 1916. He was the son of Mary and Samuel Holland, who lived at 16, Flower street, at Northwich in my constituency.
	Lance Corporal Holland is buried in the Ecoivres military cemetery in Pas de Calais. When my righthon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's decision to grant the pardon, his announcement was covered by the  Northwich Guardian. It interviewed an Army veteran from Weaverham in my constituency. Eighty-eight-year-old Harry Littler of Walnut avenue, who served with the British armed forces for six years in the second world war, said:
	"It's worried me all my life. Anyone who has been on a battlefield would know.
	Sometimes those chaps didn't know where they were, never mind what they were doing. The sight of some of those poor wretches—some of whom had given their all—their nerves shot to pieces, having to face death by firing squad because of a decision by unknown 'red tabs' and branded cowards, in my opinion was an infamy."
	The Government have absolute support for what they intend to achieve in the Lords amendment.
	At 3 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and I will stand at the war memorial at Runcorn. We will do so in the full knowledge that we can pay tribute to those who have fallen in service of their country, giving their today for our tomorrow, as Parliament will have done the right thing and honoured those who were shot at dawn. I therefore urge the House to support the Lords amendment.

Ben Wallace: As a Lancashire MP, I join in the tribute paid to the soldier of the 2nd Battalion of the Duke of Lancaster Regiment who was killed in Basra on Monday. He will have been doing his best for, and with, his comrades, and carrying out the task that the Government sent him there to perform. We shall not forget him on Sunday, and I hope that his family derive some comfort from the personal support that I know that the Secretary of State gives to all the victims of the current Iraq and Afghanistan conflict.
	I thank the three Ministers from the Department for staying for the debate. We do not often see the full complement, on either the Opposition or Government Front Benches. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces should be congratulated on staying, and I welcome that they have done so.
	War is tragic. It is full of fear, and full of people who do not know what the next day will mean for them. War is confusing, and it separates people from those whom they love, and, very often, young men of all classes and all educations find themselves in positions that they would rather not be in. However, few of them feel that there are people to blame for the position that they are in. They do what they do because they feel that it is the right thing to do at the time. Many of them look back and ask, "Should I have been doing that? Should I have been in Northern Ireland? Should I have been carrying out the wishes of the Government of the day?" However, tragedy—feelings of loss and suffering—is part of war, and that tragedy cannot be picked apart because that suits us by our values of today.
	The case that has been put forward for the pardons is, in my view, misguided. Much of that case is also full of inaccuracies. For example, the fact is that we did recognise shell shock at that time, but what we did not do was treat it correctly. We often took officers out of the field and sent them far back to Blighty, where they received what we now know to have been the wrong treatment. Although we got our medical treatment wrong at the time, should we judge the people of the day because their knowledge of medicine was not as good as ours is now?
	That case is also full of inaccuracies because the names of many of the people for whom pardons are sought have changed—they have fluctuated. It is interesting that the Government cannot produce a definitive list of those who were executed in the war who deserve a pardon. As we know, there is a lack of records. Members of various parties have made it clear that in the cold light of day, perhaps by judicial committee, they could not make decisions on whether a pardon would have been an appropriate way of dealing with some of the problems.
	I am mystified that people convicted of "mutiny and sedition" under section 7 of the Army Act 1881 will be pardoned. Mutiny is not cowardice. Mutiny is not desertion. Mutiny is undermining the very core of military discipline, sometimes for subversive reasons. As many of the French corps and British units in the first world war knew, it can cause catastrophic problems for fighting on the front, and, in the end, it can lead to a breakdown of the whole war effort. I am amazed that a pardon for that has been added.
	It is important that we recognise that these are real offences that have a real impact on war-fighting. In today's world, if a warehouse security guard falls asleep, someone comes in and nicks all the stock. But if someone falls asleep on sentry, they might well condemn their men to death—not only in their platoon, but perhaps, in their company. There are plenty of historical war stories of such events occurring in every conflict; they have occurred in Northern Ireland, and they have happened since time immemorial. This is not the kind of issue that we can just move aside because that suits us. Some of these offences have real consequences for other people who were doing their job: hundreds of thousands of such people have died in the first world war and many other conflicts.
	It is dishonourable for us in this House, in this century, with our values, to decide whether people of that era would have a different view. I was not around in 1918 or 1916. I know that, as a soldier, I would never have the audacity to compare my military experience today with that of those who were in the military nearly 100 years ago. We all face different challenges in different conflicts, and our values will always be different. For us to go back into the first world war and pick and choose what suits us is an insult to all who fought in that campaign, and all who did their best to make sure that Britain was victorious in a war that would have affected our freedoms if we had failed in it.
	The class issue has already appeared in today's debate. There is a romantic notion that General Melchett was condemning people to death from behind the lines. Many of the men concerned were tried by their peers from their battalions, who themselves had been through the same conflicts. People did not appear from nowhere dressed in nice pressed shirts to judge these men; they were often tried by their peers. We might not like the trial process that they faced, but sometimes they faced those trials because of the conditions that people were in—because they did not have the luxury of being able to leave the front line, as they had to get on with doing their job, which was playing their part in defending Britain and ensuring victory in the first world war. We should not be persuaded by such romantic visions, or by the comedians whom we often see on television.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that, as was said by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) in his eloquent speech, officers who were exposed to shell shock weresent home, whereas privates from working-class communities such as mine were sent before the firing squad?

Ben Wallace: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. They were sent home by people in that era, making judgments on their values, not our values. I do not think that that is the right way to go about such matters, but that was the way they went about it, and who am I to stand here and judge them? Such decisions were based on a class system that is, I hope, on its way to being defunct, but that system was historical fact, even if it is not of today. Therefore what the hon. Gentleman says is not the right argument to use as an excuse for pardons.

Kevan Jones: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point, but that stain is still on the character of those families in working-class communities throughout this country; it has not been erased through the passing of the generations. That might not affect the middle-class homes that the hon. Gentleman might want to represent in this House, but for working-class communities, that stain is there, and it has been there for generations.

Ben Wallace: That is the most patronising pap that I have heard for a long time.

Keith Simpson: Can I intervene on what sounds a little like an old-fashioned class-war disagreement? I do not think that we should go down that route. I, as a military historian, accept that, at that time, an officer's chances of being executed were far less. However, I also must say that the soldiers convicted and executed during the first world war of a capital punishment came from wide and varied backgrounds. They were not all inarticulate working class by any means. I think that we should now continue by listening to the main line of the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace), rather than get drawn down this negative route.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advice. I certainly agree that this debate is not about class, and that it is not about today's values. A lot of it is about yesterday's historical values.

Patrick Mercer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has not quite put his finger on the point, and that he should look with a little more historical accuracy at the sort of men who, certainly by late 1915, were being commissioned and were taking the brunt of the infantry platoon commander's battle? Many of them came from working-class backgrounds, as he might define them.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. We must recognise that the stigma will still be there. The amendment states that the relevant section that gives a pardon to those who were executed does not
	"affect any conviction of sentence".
	I take that to mean that there will still be people convicted of cowardice, desertion and all the other offences, and that is stigma enough. Regardless of whether or not I was executed, I would not like to have a conviction for cowardice.
	This is the problem with the amendment and the gesture politics behind it. If the Government wanted to grant a pardon, they should have tabled an amendment that granted a proper pardon, rather than one that removes the stigma only for those who were executed, and not for those who were convicted. That is the flaw in the amendment—that stigma will still be there for those war widows and others for generations to come.I would welcome some clarification from the Government on this issue. Will such people still have a conviction?

Don Touhig: The pardon is not perfect, and thereare matters—the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) discussed them—that cannot be covered. There is no perfect solution to this problem, but if the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) felt that this was the wrong amendment, it was open to him and his colleagues to move a better one. We all want closure and a resolution to this issue, in the interests of those who suffered and of the families who still suffer.

Ben Wallace: My idea of closure is to learn from history and not tinker with it. We should recognise the tragedy that was the first world war, warts and all. This should not be about tinkering in order to make us feel good in our beds. If we do not learn from history, we will not learn for the future. I hope that this Government recognise that we in this House are at our worst when we are pious and apply our values to yesterday, rather than learning the lessons of yesterday and taking them forward, in order to avoid such tragedies and such loss and hurt to our country.

Kevan Jones: I rise to support the amendment, which I believe is the correct way to put right a dreadful wrong done to many people in my constituency, and others. I accept and respect the fact that there is an alternative position. It was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who explained his position in a well informed, thoughtful and well argued speech, but who recognised that there must be some form of closure. I disagree with his conclusions, but I respect his position.
	What I cannot accept, however, is what we have heard tonight from Opposition Front Benchers. They have criticised the Secretary of State for taking this decision—I congratulate him, and I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on his part in the amendment—but they have not got the guts to vote against the amendment tonight. It was open to the Opposition to table amendments in another place, but they have not taken that opportunity. That would have been a far more respectable position to adopt.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—he is not in his place—sought to imply that, because the three Ministers on the Front Bench have not got military experience, they are somehow dabbling in the military process. If the hon. Gentleman were here, I would tell him that he should take a look at his own Front Benchers. There is the honourable exception of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who is a naval reservist. I think that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made the Air Cadets and no further, and unless—

Gerald Howarth: Just to put the record straight, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was commissioned in the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve as a member of my university air squadron.

Kevan Jones: And did not go any further.
	The nearest that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) got to action in the trenches—unless he has not told the House about his military record—was defending against the critics in his role as operations manager from 2000 to 2002. So the criticism levelled at Ministers for taking this decision, and the argument that they do not understand the military, is completely unworthy of this debate.

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: With pleasure.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I had not intended to rejoin this debate. My aim was not to attack the Ministers on the Front Bench, for whom I happen to have—to varying degrees—grudging regard, but to point out that when Major Attlee was Prime Minister and when that famous Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald was in power, they took no action. What has changed except the passage of90 years? The hon. Gentleman has been attacking my hon. Friends, but I should point out that we in the shadow Government have a very large number of people with military experience, including myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who has been in Iraq, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster).

Kevan Jones: I am well aware of that and I have to pay tribute to people such as the hon. Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster), who serves on the Defence Select Committee and who has been in Afghanistan over the summer. I am sorry, but I will not accept this nonsense that, because people have not got military experience, they are somehow inferior to those who have served in our armed forces. To say that is not to criticise those Opposition Members—or anyone else in this House—who have served in Her Majesty's armed forces.
	I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who has campaigned tenaciously for this amendment; it is a great tribute to his persistence. I also want to pay tribute to John Hipkin, who was a constituent of mine when I was a city councillor in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and who has fought for many years for the pardon that the House will hopefully agree to tonight. John, a cabin boy, was the youngest prisoner of war during the second world war, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock reminded me, he featured in a documentary last year that showed the pressures he experienced serving his country as a teenager.
	The amendment will not solve every single problem, and if we are looking for perfection we will not find it there, but it will enable a line to be drawn under these events.
	Lance Corporal Peter Goggins, of South Moor, Stanley—he is the uncle of a constituent of mine, Marina Brewis, who also lives in Stanley—was shot at dawn in 1917. He and his comrades, who were part of the 19th Durham Light Infantry, were guarding their positions on the western front. They were retreated when a senior officer informed them that an ambush was taking place that was advancing from the German lines. That proved to be unfounded, and Corporal Goggins was tried on Christmas Eve 1916 and executed in January 1917.
	Private Albert Rochester witnessed the execution. His diaries state:
	"A motor ambulance arrives carrying the doomed men. Manacled and blindfolded, they are helped out and tied up to the stakes. Over each man's heart is placed an envelope. At the sign of command, the firing parties, 12 for each, align their rifles on the envelopes. The officer in charge holds his stick aloft and, as it falls, 36 bullets usher the souls of three of Kitchener's men to the great unknown."
	The military chaplain present said of the three men executed that morning:
	"Braver men I have never met."
	This amendment will lift the stain on the Brewis family. When Mrs. Brewis, who is now 71, heard of the amendment, she said that it was "wonderful news", and that although she would be "sceptical" until Parliament passed it, she and the other families who have been campaigning for a pardon for many years would be delighted to see it.
	This has not been an easy decision for Ministers and others to reach, but it will lift the stigma and the sense of shame that a lot of such families have experienced. We must also remember the hardship that they went through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock explained earlier. I accept that there are Opposition Members who do not agree with the amendment, and if they feel very strongly that they cannot support it, they should divide the House and ensure that we put onthe record who supported the amendment and whodid not.

Henry Bellingham: As far as that last set of remarks is concerned, many of us have listened to this argument very carefully, and many of us may disagree with parts of the proposal, but we have a right to question the Government, to hold them to account and to ask various questions. Just because we do not go along with everything that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has said, that does not mean that we should necessarily push the amendment to a vote. I do not understand the logic of what he has been saying.
	I should declare an interest because both my grandfathers fought in the first world war with huge bravery and distinction. My great-uncle also fought in the first world war as a founder member of the Royal Tank Regiment. Umpteen relations of mine fought in the first world war and died. The issue is very emotional.
	We have had an interesting debate tonight. I admire the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), whom I have respected for many years. We have campaigned together in other areas and he has been a marvellous ally in one particular campaign involving constituents who have faced injustice. I greatly admire his tenacity and determination. Obviously we should salute that this evening, because he has worked tirelessly on this matter. I do not agree with where he is coming from and I do not support the conclusions that he has reached, but I still respect him for that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who is my parliamentary neighbour, made a learned and erudite speech. He knows a huge amount about this subject. He made one point that certainly had resonance, because I remember my grandfather making the same point clear to me when we discussed the issue, which we did many times. My grandfather lived until about 1970. He was badly wounded in 1916. He was then badly gassed the following year and never really recovered. I was quite young—about 12 or so—when he died, but I remember speaking to him at length about this issue. He said that he and his friends fought first for their chums, secondly for their regiment, and thirdly for Queen or King. That was the point that my hon. Friend made: there was a feeling among the millions of people who fought in the first world war that those who let the side down put not just their own lives, but the lives of many others, at risk.
	Successive Secretaries of State have looked at the issue. It is nothing new. I had the privilege and honour of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind)—he was then the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh Pentlands. We looked at the issue in great detail and decided that it would be wrong to reopen the matter and rewrite history. Successive Labour Secretaries of State have done exactly the same. I well remember the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) making it clear that he felt that this was not the right way to go. He argued persuasively and with huge intellectual rigour that pardons should not be granted. I do not know what has changed.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, this is a complicated process that involves a great deal of effort and input. With great respect to Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, and indeed some Conservative Members, it beggars belief that Ministers can devote time to this matter—important as they may regard it—when they face so many other priorities and issues. Just look at the huge challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is the huge issue of the vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq that do not have the necessary armour and the issue of helicopter lift capacity. There are all those other massive challenges that my hon. Friend referred to.
	I know, because I have a large number of friends in the armed forces, including five colleagues from university who happen to be brigadiers or generals, that this decision is very unpopular with the armed forces. I am concerned that the trust and respect of the armed forces for the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government will be damaged by this issue. I only hope that that will be got over quickly. As a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the decision is totally illogical. It does not quash convictions and it does not remove sentences.

Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Henry Bellingham: I want to be brief, because we need to make progress. There is a long list of amendments. I am going to wrap my remarks up quite soon.
	What about the 2,700 soldiers who were sentenced to death, but had their sentences commuted? Will they be affected? Will they receive a pardon? We heard about the Farr case, which was moving and tragic. However, every single case is different. If one has a look at the breakdown, as some colleagues have already, one sees that out of the 346 soldiers who were executed, 37 were executed for murder and will not benefit from the pardon. I mentioned earlier in an intervention that there were five who were executed for disobedience to a lawful order. One of them was a private in the Royal Norfolks who disobeyed four separate orders, on four different occasions. He was given umpteen warnings. He was sentenced to death by firing squad for disobedience to those lawful orders before he even got near the front, so he certainly could not have suffered from any form of shell shock. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, 18 soldiers were sentenced for mutiny and various other offences.
	The issue is complicated and every single case is different, which is why I took the view that perhaps we should have set up a tribunal of Commonwealth judges or learned judges to look at every single case totally separately on its merits. In my judgment, what we are are doing is illogical. Whatever colleagues say, if we not rewriting history, we are certainly writing it. What happened in the great war was horrific and tragic, but we are looking at it from a modern-day perspective. We are imposing our modern-day values on events that happened nearly 100 years ago. Of course those men would not have been executed today. In the second world war, there was not a single British soldier executed by firing squad. I gather that one American was executed during the battle of the Bulge. To put that into perspective, 10,000 German soldiers were hung for either desertion or cowardice in the last war and 25,000 Russians were shot by firing squad—probably double that number were shot by the commissars who were attached to each single unit.
	Should we really be questioning the motives and the rationale of the Army commanders in world war one? Should we be questioning the decisions taken by the much reviled Field Marshal Haig? How far back should we go? Should we go back to the Boer war and Breaker Morant, or the Zulu war, or the Crimean war? What other categories of offence will be covered by future initiatives of this kind? What about the British traitors who were hanged during the second world war, such as Lord Haw-Haw and John Amery and many others, who may well not have had a fair trial at the time?
	We have had an interesting and, in many ways, moving debate, with a lot of excellent contributions. Those of us who have doubts about this matter should not be taunted by the other side for not putting it to a vote, because we have asked a lot of sensible questions. Can the Minister really give us a categorical assurance that this measure will not set a precedent? Is this really a one-off? We are all decent, compassionate human beings. Of course we can regret the past and observe the deeds of our ancestors with astonishment, incomprehension and even sad regret. Obviously we can feel only pity towards those luckless soldiers who were executed nearly a century ago. There is little doubt that many of them showed incredible bravery and astonishing mental toughness when they were finally led out to be shot, blindfolded and alone. We have to applaud their courage in extremis. They were as much victims of that war as the three quarters of a million of their comrades, in addition to the millions of other soldiers, who were killed. However, I do not believe that we should reinvent the past to suit our wishes today. That way lies madness. That is why I have serious regrets about what the Government are doing and I am looking forward to the assurances from the Minister.

Derek Twigg: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker we have had a reflective, important and well thought debate. No one could say that the arguments expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House have not been well aired. Strong views have been expressed by many, and passionate views have been expressed by some. This is a difficult issue.
	It is important that I put it on record that the intention of the pardon is to remove the dishonour of execution. It is not intended that it will quash the convictions or sentences. It stands as a recognition that execution was not a fate that servicemen deserved. I cannot make any clearer why we wish to introduce the measure.
	I know that such matters have a great emotional impact on people. We are of course discussing the period of the first world war, which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) made clear, has a particular impact on the nation's consciousness, given the terrible horrors that took place. I never met my grandfather because he died well before I was born, but I have met and talked to veterans of the first world war, so I have some understanding, albeit perhaps not in the greatest depth, of their suffering, fear and bravery and the horror of the events. Hundreds of thousands of people made many sacrifices and went through absolutely unbelievable experiences in the trenches and during the battles that took place.
	On Remembrance Sunday, we will all remember the tremendous courage and sacrifice of those who fought in the first world war, second world war and other conflicts, and the service that they gave. I hope that we can now let the matter rest in peace.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 65 agreed to.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Mutiny

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 and 66.

Derek Twigg: I will be brief because I am conscious that Opposition Members want to ensure that their comments about later groups of Lords amendments are put on the record. I thus intend no disrespect to the House by the amount of time for which I shall speak to several groups.
	The Lords amendments are improvements to the drafting of provisions on the offences of mutiny and desertion. They will make the provisions easier forthe layman to understand. We listened carefully to concerns expressed in another place about the way in which the provisions on the offence of mutiny were originally drafted. We agreed that clause 6 could be redrafted so that it would be simpler to understand, not least by including the word "mutiny" in the body of the offence.
	The Lords amendments make no substantive change to the effect of the original measure—mutiny remains both an agreement to resist or overthrow authority, and the act of doing so. Under clause 7, as amended, failure to suppress an act of mutiny will remain an offence, but failure to suppress an agreement will not.

Gerald Howarth: I quite understand the Minister's remarks. Given the interest in world war one pardons among hon. Members on both sides of the House, it was inevitable that that debate would take up a huge amount of our time. We have further important issues to raise, so I hope that the House will agree with the Minister's suggestion.
	I understand that the Marshall of the Royal Air Force, Lord Craig, spotted that the issue of mutiny was absent from the provisions. The Lords amendments are sensible additions to the Bill.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Absence without leave

Lords amendment: No. 7.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 15, 67 and 68.

Derek Twigg: The Lords amendments are designed to clarify and simplify certain offences. None of them has any substantive effect on the overall scope of the clauses affected. Nothing will become an offence that is not already an offence under the Bill as it stands.The Lords amendments are designed solely to avoid practical difficulties for prosecutors and commanding officers and to simplify the Bill.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 36
	 — 
	Inaccurate certification

Lords amendment: No. 16.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17.

Derek Twigg: The Lords amendments are a response to concerns raised in the Select Committee and the other place. They will extend the offence of inaccurate certification to prescribed equipment to ensure that equivalent equipment or land systems may be covered.

Gerald Howarth: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his brief comments. We spotted in Committee that there was a lacuna in the Bill. We tried to rectify that in this House, but we were unable to do so. I am thus grateful to their lordships for pressing the matter and to the Government for accepting the amendment.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.

Clause 58
	 — 
	Time limit for charging civilian formerly subject to service discipline

Lords amendment: No. 18.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	Again, I will be brief. The Lords amendment will ensure the consistent application of the six-month time limit for charging civilians subject to service discipline.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 19

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I suggest that we might have a bit more of a debate on this amendment. It takes account of concerns expressed in the House and the other place about keeping a commanding officer in the loop. It will mean that the Bill will provide that service police must notify the commanding officer when a schedule 2 case, or a case in prescribed circumstances, is referred directly to the Director of Service Prosecutions. In addition, the Lords amendment provides that when notifying the CO of the referral, the service policeman will be required to send him relevant documents. We have provided that the detail of the documents should be set out in regulations. They will essentially be the case papers.

Gerald Howarth: As the Minister indicated, the Opposition consider this to be one of the most important issues in the Bill. During the passage of the Bill in this place we tried to persuade the Government that it was necessary under the new arrangements to ensure that the commanding officer remained in the loop, in the event that the proposals as originally set out in the Bill were enacted.
	Our concerns were that under the proposals originally put before the House by the Government, the commanding officer, having lost the right to dismiss a serious charge—that is, essentially, one of murder or rape—would be required on a serious charge simply to inform the service policeman, who would then conduct an investigation, instead of the investigation thatthe commanding officer would previously have undertaken, and that the military policemen undertaking the investigation would report to the Director of Service Prosecutions as to the nature of the investigation and whether he believed that there was sufficient evidence for the Director of Service Prosecutions to proceed.
	Under those arrangements, there was no provision for the commanding officer to be kept in the loop. I pay tribute to the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff who took up the issue and batted with it in another place, together with the noble Lord Ramsbotham, the noble Earl Attlee and Lord Campbell of Alloway, all of whom, on any reading of the debates in the other place, made a significant contribution not only to the improvement of the Bill, but to the quality of the debate. By the way in which they conducted themselves, they demonstrated the virtue of having in the other place men and women able to bring to bear on debates such experience and expertise, which would not be available if we moved to an elected upper House. It is important to recognise the contribution made in the other place.
	Much was made in the other place of the importance of maintaining the chain of command, which is essential. I shall attempt to set it out as I understand it, despite not being, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) knows, a regular Royal Air Force man, for I had political aspirations and wanted to come to the House, and I was successful in that. The chain of command is an important issue because it goes to the heart of how the Army, in particular, is organised.
	The Army depends upon men and women being prepared to take orders unquestioningly. In return for that unquestioning obedience to orders, the soldier looks to the commanding officer for reassurance that in the event that, acting in good faith, he nevertheless makes a mistake, he will be supported. We were concerned about the original arrangements proposed by the Government because if a soldier faced a serious charge, the arrangements would have prevented the commanding officer from being properly consulted to ensure that he was able to provide the service prosecuting authorities with important background information and to make contact between the commander and the commanded. I make no apology for having sought to insist that we introduce the change, and I am grateful to the Government for accepting the case.
	It is important to keep the commanding officer in the loop. Nevertheless, even with the change, I have reservations. I do not in any way impugn the integrity of Ministers or their advisers, but we are at risk, in this context and in others that we will discuss later, of undermining the chain of command. There was much talk of that in the other place. That is why the amendment was welcomed there.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry if I have upset the hon. Gentleman this evening, but I agree with him on the amendment. Does he agree that when he and I and other members of the Select Committee travelled to Cyprus and spoke to investigating officers, it became clear that one of the most important aims was to protect not only the accused, but the commanding officer, and that the collection of evidence by service policemen at an early stage was a vital part of the process?

Gerald Howarth: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I was happy to share that trip. He is right. The efficient and speedy implementation of the procedures is essential, and the military policeman in whatever service has an important role to play. I was anxious to ensure that the commanding officer was kept in the loop.
	I seek clarification on another aspect. The House will recall that there was a furore over the case of Trooper Williams, whose commanding officer dismissed a serious charge against him after taking legal advice, because some in the Army thought their
	"failure to offer Williams for prosecution"
	would become a cause celebre for pressure groupsand the media. Consequently, the Attorney-General assumed responsibility for the case and subjected Williams to a trial through the civil courts. Williams was acquitted, but it was widely held that a soldier should never again be put through that ordeal.
	In the debate in the other place on these matters, the Attorney-General stated on 11 October:
	"When the Director of Service Prosecutions considers a case and decides not to proceed with it . . . he will have the power to give a direction which would, in effect, bar any further service or civilian prosecution for the same offence."
	I am concerned to ensure that once that happens, that is closure and the civilian authorities will not be able to reopen the case as they did with Trooper Williams.
	However, a few moments later in the debate, the Attorney-General said:
	"So far as concerns action overseas, active service and operational circumstances, I have said . . . that I envisage that a civilian prosecution will take place only in exceptional circumstances. I have not said. . .that such a case will never be brought within the civilian system."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 318-19]
	There seems to be a contradiction. If the Minister is able to clear it up, I should be grateful. I am grateful to the Government for accepting this valuable and important amendment.

Nick Harvey: I shall not detain the House. I, too, welcome the fact that the amendment has been agreed in the other place and comes before us. It is right that the commanding officer should be in the loop, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) put it. The amendment is better than the original form of the Bill and better than the status quo. It is essential for public confidence that the commanding officer ought not to have a veto on a prosecution, but it is entirely right that he should be involved and kept in the loop, so the amendment is welcome. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the benefits of having people with a great deal of experience in the second Chamber of this Parliament, although nothing would prevent such people from standing for election if we moved to an elected Chamber.

Geoffrey Cox: I want briefly to refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about the Attorney-General. I, too, would be grateful for the Minister's clarification on the precise scope and nature of the Attorney-General's discretion once the matter of a prosecution has been commenced within the military system. Clearly, once that has happened the Director of Service Prosecutions has the discretion to direct no further prosecution, but at what stage of the proceedings would the Attorney-General's discretion enter the picture? Once the commanding officer had been informed that there was to be a charge under clause 118 and it had been referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions, would the Attorney-General have the opportunity to intervene and to switch systems from military to civilian? Precisely how far must the case have progressed in the military system before the Attorney-General is prevented from entering deus ex machina, as it were, and switching it to a civilian court?

Patrick Mercer: I think that I speak as the only Member present and probably the only Member of this House who has served as a commanding officer and been invested with the powers to deal summarily with soldiers under my command. Before I go any further, let me assure the House that I come from a line of infantry officers—solid working class men who won their commissions in the field in the Royal Lincolnshire Regiment and the Sherwood Foresters—and I was proud to carry on that tradition regardless of any apparent class barriers that Labour Members may bring up.

Kevan Jones: Your father was a bishop!

Patrick Mercer: Indeed he was, but he started as a fisherman's son.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had some latitude, but all hon. Members should concentrate on the amendment before us.

Patrick Mercer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	During the earlier stages of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and I argued strongly that the powers of the commanding officer must be maintained above and beyond all else. We were particularly concerned about the Trooper Williams case. I argued, and would continue to argue, that it is crucially important for the commanding officer to have the power to dismiss charges when they appear in front of him in exceptional circumstances such as those posed by operations that occurred in relation to the Second Royal Tank Regiment in Iraq. However, it is clear that that argument is not going to progress any further.
	I beg the Minister to understand the nature ofthe relationship between a private soldier—fusilier, guardsman, trooper, or whatever his rank—and the commanding officer who is responsible for his everyday conduct, his safety, the justice that is applied to him, and the way in which he, or she, lives his or her life. My experience is only of the Army, but commanding officers in the Navy and in the Royal Air Force face precisely the same problems and pressures.
	I have been terribly critical of the Government's tinkering with the regimental system and the destruction that they have wrought upon a system that has saved this country many times in the past. The feudal—I use the word correctly—nature of our regimental systems means that there is, or at least has been in the past, a very special relationship between the ordinary soldier, seaman or airman in the junior ranks who trusts his commanding officer implicitly and understands the background that he or she comes from, and the commanding officer who, vice versa, understands the backgrounds from which those soldiers, sailors and airmen come. I therefore warmly commend and thank the Government for having listened to the experienced voices in the upper House.

George Howarth: Broadly speaking, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, I think that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would confirm that when, as a Select Committee, we spoke to serving soldiers, sailors and airmen, there was a feeling that on certain occasions commanding officers have not dealt with such issues even-handedly. I accept that in most cases they do, but there are exceptions, and we should not lose sight of the fact that that causes resentment.

Patrick Mercer: The right hon. Gentleman is of course right. In all humility, which of us who has been in that position would say that he or she got their judgments right at the time? Certainly, I did not. I hope that most of the judgments that I made were correct, but I can think back with considerable regret on things that I got wrong. The fact remains that any commanding officer worth his salt involves the military or police authorities at a very early stage by rote, but those investigating officers must—if the essential link of trust between officer and soldier, commanding officer and private is not to be broken—have the earof the commanding officer at every stage ofthe disciplinary process. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot for his efforts to ensure that the amendment went through and I also thank the noble Lords for their wisdom in ensuring that the commanding officer remains inside this crucial relationship.
	Before I close, I would like to say this to the Minister. I believe that over the next few weeks and months a number of legal issues will come to a head that will challenge yet again the relationship between officer and soldier. May I ask the Minister to listen closely to the advice given by the noble Lords on this particular issue and not to try to make further inroads into this crucial relationship—the bond of trust that exists between fighting men?

Derek Twigg: I welcome the support for the amendment and the considered comments that have been made—based, in the case of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), on considerable experience. I aim to deal with the concerns expressed in the debate.
	I recognise the concern about ensuring that cases best dealt with by the court martial remain within the services system. As the Attorney-General explained in the other place, the Bill includes provisions to prevent a reoccurrence of the unfortunate case of Trooper Williams, to which the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred, where a matter considered and excluded from prosecution in the military system was then considered within the civilian system.
	Under clause 126, when the Director of Service Prosecutions has considered a case, he will be able to direct that there shall be no further proceedings in the civilian system as well as in the service system. The Attorney-General also recognised—I entirely agree—that only in exceptional circumstances would a case arising from operational circumstances be dealt with by the UK civilian courts. It remains possible, however, to envisage circumstances in which that might still be viewed as appropriate.
	Let me give the House an example. While on operations abroad, perhaps during peacekeeping, a British soldier and some British civilians abroad are alleged to have committed murder. The Director of Service Prosecutions could look into relevant factors such as whether civilians were themselves subject to law and whether the offence related to possible other criminal activity in the UK. I can imagine that the DSP might want to seek the Attorney-General's advice in such a case and the decision taken could be that it should be handled in the UK civilian courts. That is fully consistent, however, with the DSP having the decision in a case that he has considered on whether to preclude further proceedings.
	On the hon. Member for Newark's question about when the Attorney-General's discretion arises, the prosecuting authority is free to seek his view and ask for a decision at any time before the prosecuting authority reaches a decision. If he decides not to prosecute, he makes a direction under clause 126.

Gerald Howarth: What we want to avoid is a repetition of the Trooper Williams case. We want to avoid the Attorney-General's coming in and subjecting a soldier, sailor or airman to the civilian courts. Can we have some assurance that only in the most exceptional circumstances that would happen? I hear what the Minister says, but it is terribly important for it to be expressly stated—that once a case is heard in the military system, that is it. We need to be sure that the Attorney-General cannot then intervene and draw it into the civilian system.

Derek Twigg: I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants the matter to be clearly set out. I thought that I had done that in my preceding remarks but I confirm "exceptional cases" again. I hope that my explanation has provided some reassurance.

George Howarth: Is not it the case that, by definition, an exceptional circumstance cannot be described in advance?

Derek Twigg: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. However, I emphasise my previous comments about exceptional cases. They are on the record and I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot will accept the reassurance in the good faith in which it is given.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 124
	 — 
	Powers of DSP in respect of charge allocated for Court Martial trial

Lords amendment: No. 20.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 24, 35 and 36.

Derek Twigg: The amendments are designed to ensure that the court martial's powers of sentencing are restricted to that of the CO so that there is no disincentive to elect for trial.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 136
	 — 
	Service compensation orders: maximum amount

Lords amendment: No. 25.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The commanding officer currently has a limit of £1,000 that he can award by way of a service compensation order. The Secretary of State can, by order, substitute the sum in the Bill. The amendment qualifies that so that he can do so essentially only to increase the limit in line with inflation. The amendment was tabled on the recommendation, which we were happy to accept, of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Gerald Howarth: I am happy to acceptthe amendment, although it is curious that the Government will be locked into the figure of £1,000, as adjusted by inflation, for ever. Future circumstances may require an amendment, but I shall not argue the case now.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 142
	 — 
	Officers and warrant officers qualified for membership of the SAC

Lords amendment: No. 26.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30, 50, 53, 54 and 69.

Derek Twigg: The amendments simply change the reference to the "Supreme Court" of Northern Ireland to the "Court of Judicature". The Supreme Court of Northern Ireland is renamed under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as the Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 154
	 — 
	Constitution of the Court Martial

Lords amendment: No. 27.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28, 29, 31 to 34, 52 and 62.

Derek Twigg: The amendments deal with the minimum and maximum numbers of lay members required for a court martial. They respond to views in this House and in another place about the desirability of including minimum and maximum numbers of lay members in the Bill rather than in the rules. They also introduce a power to create in the rules made under the Bill a slip rule for the court martial. A slip rule is a power to respond to errors in sentencing and is analogous to a power that is applied in the Crown court. The amendments also define who may be a judge advocate.

Gerald Howarth: This group of amendments places in the Bill the make-up of the panels. There was much debate on this issue in the other place, and it focused not only on putting the numbers in the Bill but on whether there should be a presumption that the panel of the court martial should be made up of members of the defendant's own service. The Minister will know that Admiral Lord Boyce has been vigorous in his pursuit of ensuring that that should be the presumption. The former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, was also very much of the view that soldiers should preferably be tried by other soldiers, and that that should be the presumption. I seek from the Minister a repetition of the assurance that was given in the other place by Lord Drayson, who said:
	"We strongly believe—this is the view of all three services—that a court martial should generally be made up from individuals of the defendant's own service, and that shouldbe the presumption."—[ Official Report, House of Lords,31 October 2006; Vol. 686, c. 226.]
	One of the difficulties that we face is that the Bill will generate a vast amount of regulation, of which we have not yet had sight. That is understandable, but it makes our task more difficult. It is important that we have an assurance that there is no doubt that that will be the presumption. Lord Boyce made the point that, for example, there would be no point in a soldier or a sailor dealing with a case involving negligence while flying. Equally, if a ship had run aground, it would be much more sensible to have a naval panel to administer the court martial than soldiers or airmen. We have logic on our side in this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm what his noble Friend said in the other place.
	A further issue in relation to courts martial relatesto the Director of Service Prosecutions, who will administer the process. I hope that the Minister will be able to repeat in this House the desire expressed in the other place that the director should have military experience, and that, if he does not, he should be sent on an induction course to ensure that he does. I see a certain amount of agreement on this in parts of the Chamber where, I assure the Minister, it is valuable for him to have agreement. In consequence, I do not think that giving such an assurance should cause him any trouble. It is important, however, that he should give us that assurance here tonight.

Bob Russell: I should like to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). There was broad consensus among those of us who served on the Armed Forces Bill that, although we obviously welcomed the bringing together of the disciplinary procedures of the three services, it was vital in the eyes of the accused that those sitting in judgment on him or her in a court martial should predominantly be members of his or her service. It would be preferable if they were drawn exclusively from that service, however, because that would ensure that it was the defendant's peers from his or her own service who were sitting in judgment. Will the Minister give us an assurance that those sitting in judgment in a court martial will more often than not—if not always—come from the same service as the accused?

Patrick Mercer: I warmly welcome the change made by the Bill to allow servicemen and women of all ranks to sit in judgment on courts martial. I always found it peculiar that, previously, the administration of justice at court martial was restricted to officers. It is an excellent idea to take advantage of the knowledge and residual experience of, for example, warrant officers. We ignore that understanding, knowledge and empathy at our peril. The measure is sensible.
	The recent, unfortunate downing of a Nimrod aircraft showed how mixed our servicemen and women are on operations. I think that I am right that that Nimrod crew included conventional airmen—if that is the right phrase—Royal Air Force Regiment aircrew, a Royal Marine and a Parachute Regiment soldier. Therefore, if there had been some disciplinary proceeding involved, a joint service court martial would have made a huge amount of sense. Assembling such a court martial will be expensive, however, and will cause a time delay. I speak with a little experience about that. A soldier, sailor or airman who is to face a court martial wants quick justice.
	As a note of caution, the disciplinary atmospheres of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force are subtly different. For instance, friends of mine in the Royal Air Force who served with my battalion in Bosnia found remarkable the draconian attitudes that we had to take towards the relatively minor offence of absence, which is almost unknown in the Royal Air Force. Therefore, as the application and delivery of discipline are subtly different between the services, I ask the Minister to assure the House that a mixed panel will be the exception rather than the rule.

Derek Twigg: Some important points and reflective contributions have been made. I am happy to put several points on the record in response.
	I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about mixed panels in a court martial trying servicemen. I reassure him that we strongly believe—as do all three services—that a court martial should generally be made up of individuals from the defendant's own service. In response to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), such a panel would not include all ranks—it would include officers and warrant officers, as is the case now. On this issue, I can do no better than repeat what my noble Friend Lord Drayson said in Committee in the other place on 11 October:
	"in most cases it is intended that the defendant will appear before a court made up of personnel from his own service. This was the preference of the First Sea Lord and the Chief of the General Staff who in their evidence to the Select Committee said that there should be a presumption for a single service board unless there is a good reason for a mixed board to be appointed—for example, when defendants from different services are tried together."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 351.]
	Rules will provide the criteria on which the court administration officer should select a mixed panel. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Aldershot and other Members that in most cases, as now, a serviceman tried by court martial will appear before a panel made up entirely of members of his own service.
	On the issue of the Director of Service Prosecutions, it is essential that we do everything that we can to appoint the best person to that important job. I also recognise the strength of feeling expressed by hon. Members and those in the other place that the person appointed should be someone who has had service experience. The service chiefs considered the matter carefully, and have assured Ministers that they are content with the Bill as it stands. They welcome the consultation that will take place with the principal personnel officers in each of the services about the job specification and terms and conditions for the post, and the involvement of a senior serving officer in the selection process.
	I think that we are agreed on two things: that the director should have the appropriate service experience, and that the recruitment process should be sufficiently robust to ensure that the person appointed will be an outstanding individual who will enjoy the confidence of the services while being entirely independent from them. By "service experience" I mean an understanding of service life and the operations of each of the services, and of the needs and workings of a service system of justice and discipline.
	It is possible that there will be an outstanding candidate for this important post who has no previous uniformed experience, or whose service may have taken place some years ago. In both cases, it would be particularly important for the candidate to undertake an appropriate induction period before taking up the post. Similarly, were the director to be appointed from one of the services, he or she might need a period in which to develop a deeper understanding of how the other two services operate.
	We recognise that any induction process needs to be intensive, and of sufficient duration for the individual to develop a thorough understanding of life across the three services. As I have said, it is essential for the director to have a knowledge of how each service operates, and of the needs and workings of the service system of justice and discipline.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 184
	 — 
	Conditional or absolute discharge

Lords amendment: No. 37.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 46 and 70 to 73.

Derek Twigg: I shall be brief, in view of the time. These minor amendments are designed to clarify sentencing powers of the Service Civilian Court, to clarify the position on the commencement of activated sentences of detention, and to provide how time spent in service custody is to be treated in relation to sentencing.

Gerald Howarth: A judgment on the Martin case was delivered recently in the European Court of Human Rights. Ministers have held throughout our proceedings that the Bill is compliant. For the sake of brevity, I shall merely say that the case involved a 17-year-old civilian, the son of a serving soldier, who was tried for murder. The trial took place by court martial in Germany after the father had left the service and, indeed, left Germany. The child was taken back there. Can the Minister tell us whether the case will result in a change in the administration of the Service Civilian Court?
	In respect of punishments, there was a debate in the other place about the rules of engagement. The Government decided not to accept the suggestion from the former chiefs that the rules of engagement ought to be cast in law, so that any soldier, sailor or airman acting in pursuance of those rules would be immune from prosecution. It might help the House if the Minister repeated some of the assurances given in the other place, most notably by his noble Friend Lord Drayson, who referred on 11 October to
	"the situation where a soldier makes a mistake".
	Lord Drayson said:
	"it is important for me to reassure the Committee that if a soldier acts in combat on his view of the situation, even if it is wrong, he will not be guilty of a crime."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 295.]
	Our soldiers have concerns about the rules of engagement and about the risk of prosecution, about which the armed forces have tried to do something to reassure our soldiers in particular.
	If the Minister could state here that he supported what his noble Friend Lord Drayson said, it will send out a clear message to our armed forces—particularly those on the front line in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, in Iraq—that they can have confidence in the system, and that provided that they act in good faith and in accordance with their rules of engagement, notwithstanding that those rules are not enshrined in law, they will be supported not only by the chain of command but by the service courts that the Bill seeks to establish.

Derek Twigg: On 24 October, the European Court of Human Rights gave its judgment in the case of Martin. We need to be clear what it decided. The case was about the son of a serviceman who was tried by court martial in 1995 for the murder of a civilian in Germany. The court martial was subject to the same objections as were found to exist in the Findlay case in 1996, and which were remedied by the Armed Forces Act of 1996. It is no surprise that the European Court also decided in Martin that the court martial was not compliant.
	The European Court did not decide that courts martial should not try civilians, or that they should not try civilian juveniles, but it did state the important principle that a military jurisdiction should be exercised over civilians only if there are "compelling reasons". In the Martin case there was the possibility of civilian trial in the UK, because the charge was murder. The court did not decide whether there had been "compelling reasons" for court martial trial. It did not need to, because as I have said, it decided the case on the basis that the court martial at that time was not compliant. The court did not go into what they thought would be compelling reasons.
	We are looking carefully at the judgment in Martin. We will consider carefully the need for compelling reasons and will seek to ensure that, where court martial trial is adopted, there are compelling reasons for doing so. We shall also consider further the make-up of the court martial in cases involving civilians. There are a number of issues here. We have to ensure that, so far as possible, we have a uniform and consistent system available for all civilians who come within the scope of the Bill. We also need to take into account the need for a court martial to be able to sit abroad.
	The Bill contains a wide power to decide the membership of the court martial in special cases. We were already considering what the membership should be in civilian cases. Hon. Members can be assured that in every respect, we will do what we think this judgment requires.
	Finally, hon. Members will appreciate that the judgment in the case of Martin has potential implications not only for the court martial under the Bill, but also for courts martial convened under the Service Discipline Acts. If, following careful deliberation, we conclude that the judgment requires our current procedures to be modified, we will beable to do so using the alignment powers provided by clause 381.

Gerald Howarth: Having attended relatively few of these debates, the Under-Secretary may not be familiar with my views; others may be. I think it is very dangerous for this House to allow the European Court of Human Rights to determine the disposition of our armed forces and how we organise their justice. They look to us for the remedying of injustice, and how we organise our courts does seem to be a matter for us. Also, those judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are recommendations, and the Government are free to reject them.

Derek Twigg: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from.
	Given that the use of these powers is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, any such proposals will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure he will welcome that.
	On the rules of engagement I am happy to put on record that I agree with Lord Drayson's comments in another place.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 46 agreed to.

Clause 332
	 — 
	Redress of individual grievances: service complaints

Lords amendment: No. 47.

Derek Twigg: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 48, 49, 55 and 63.

Derek Twigg: I am conscious of the time, and I know that some hon. Members wish to contribute on these amendments. I hope that they will therefore agree thatI should concentrate on the key changes to the complaints procedure introduced by the Government in the other place.

Gerald Howarth: This is an important group of amendments and we accept that it is part of the Government's response to the Blake report. In the other place, concern was expressed about the impact of the proposed independent commissioner on the chain of command. In the other place, Marshal of the RAF Lord Craig of Radley said:
	"Each time we legislate in a way that implies or indicates that commanders and the command chain should not be involved in a disciplinary or complaints process, a secondary but no less important message is being transmitted...The message is that commanders and the command chain cannot or may not be trusted to dispense discipline fairly."
	This is another issue on which he put his finger squarely on the concerns that many of us have about the corrosion of the chain of command.
	I therefore hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that the commissioner will be someone appropriate. In the debate in the other place, Lord Drayson said:
	"Our starting point is that, at the heart of the relationship between service personnel and the chain of command, is that the chain of command is responsible for investigating wrongsand remedying them."—[ Official Report, House of Lords,12 October 2006; Vol. 685, c. 393, 410.]
	The amendment will introduce a new commissioner who will have some responsibility divorced from the chain of command, although responsive to it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring(Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State, told the Minister of State on 13 June, when the Blake report was discussed, that we wanted the proposed commissioner to have a military background and, therefore, an understanding of the pressures on the chain of command.
	I am sorry that the Government have not accepted the recommendation, settling only for "an appropriate person". Given that the Government accepted that the director of service prosecutions should be someone with military experience, and given the huge importance of this appointment, I commend—with all the power at my disposal—to the Minister the idea that the appointee should have a military background. I accept that they cannot be a serving officer, but will he tell the House the kind of experience that will be possessed by the ideal candidate?

Kevan Jones: In Committee, I tabled new clause 24 which would have introduced an independent service commissioner and I warmly welcome the amendment, which will achieve that aim. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who piloted the early stages of this Bill and was important in having this amendment tabled. I also wish to pay tribute to the Deepcut and Beyond families and to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) who has campaigned on the issue.
	In paragraph 12.101, the Blake report spelled out four functions for the commissioner. The second function included the power to recommend further and necessary practical steps.
	My other question has to do with supervising how the authorities respond to a complaint. In setting out function 3, the review states:
	"Where the Commissioner is not satisfied with the outcome, despite the advice tendered, the Commissioner could intervene in the hearing of a complaint at the next level of redress. In an important case, the Commissioner should be able to institute legal proceedings to set aside legally flawed decisions not to prosecute."
	I would welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister in respect of those matters, which are not covered in the amendment.

Willie Rennie: The Government are moving in the right direction and making progress towards what Nicholas Blake outlined in his review. We welcome that, but we do not believe that the amendment goes far enough. The principles that Blake set out should be adhered to more closely, and we hope that the Government will reconsider their approach in the future.
	We do not accept the contention from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) that the measure would break the chain of command. We think that it links in with that chain, but that it should be reviewed at some future date.

Derek Twigg: I am conscious of the issues raised in connection with this amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) will correct me if I have misunderstood his argument, but I assure him that seeking redress does not mean mounting challenges to disciplinary decisions. Such challenges are matters for appeal, whereas redress has to do with complaints about any aspect of service.

Gerald Howarth: indicated assent.

Derek Twigg: I just wanted to make that clear. Clearly, the commissioner has to be independent and we want the best possible person for that position.

Gerald Howarth: I understand entirely that the commissioner will be dealing with complaints from soldiers, sailors and airmen about bullying, harassment and so on, and that there must be the independent element that the Blake review sought. However, it is very important that the commissioner, whoever that turns out to be, is more than just "the appropriate person": it would be helpful if, like the Director of Service Prosecutions, he were someone with an understanding of the services. I accept that he cannot be a serving military person, but I submit that giving that role to a complete outsider could be difficult for the armed forces, which would not achieve what we all want.

Derek Twigg: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has strong views about who the commissioner should be. The independence of the post is crucial, and it is important that we put that on record. I am happy to listen to any comments that he has to make, but the important thing is to get the best person for the job.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked, in relation to function 2, whether the commissioner could recommend further steps to be taken, where that is necessary and practical. The recommendation in the Blake report relates to how a complaint is investigated. It is not the intended function of the commissioner to intervene in the handling of an individual complaint, or to say how it should be investigated. The commissioner will look at how complaints are handled generally, and to include his findings in the annual report.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham also asked, in relation to function 3, whether the commissioner could institute legal proceedings and set aside legally flawed decisions. The commissioner's function relates to the redress of an individual grievance. The Bill rightly gives him no function in the area of prosecutions. As the Government said in reply to the Blake report, the question of whether to prosecute for a serious offence must be for the independent Director of Service Prosecutions. If the commissioner considers that the possibility of prosecution was not being sufficiently considered, there is nothing to prevent him from making his views known to the Secretary of State. However, the decision on prosecutions must be for the Director of Service Prosecutions.
	 It being three hours after commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order[12 December 2005 and this day].
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the timetabling of proceedings today. I seek your guidance as to how the House might better deal with serious and important issues. The Armed Forces Bill, which we have debated over a long period, will set the framework for the disciplinary arrangements for Her Majesty's armed forces, who are in theatre as we speak, for the next generation at least. It is disappointing that today we have inevitably had to spend quite a long time on the issue of first world war pardons. Hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to discuss it, but it has inevitably left us short of time for other important matters. I do not think that we were desperately short of time, but I do not think that either Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members were other than economical with the time that we had available.
	It seems a shame that we are locked into such rigid arrangements, Mr. Speaker. How might we introduce, by agreement between both sides, some element of flexibility to allow the House to deal with matters? All of us were anxious to allow the debate to flow; it was not a question of anyone taking up unnecessary time. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I must be bound by the decision that the House has made regarding the programme motion. These things are negotiated by the usual channels. There are some things that the Speaker interferes in and other things that he does not. I do not interfere with the negotiations of the usual channels, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his Chief Whip. It may be helpful.

PETITION

Fireworks

Henry Bellingham: I rise this evening to present a petition that was gathered by my constituent Mrs. Teresa Kulkarni. I had an Adjournment debate last night, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and I pointed out that Teresa Kulkarni raised a staggering 129,387 signatures on her petition, which was delivered to No. 10 Downing street last Wednesday. I do not have all the signatures here, but I have a portion of them. The petition says that the undersigned believe that freely available fireworks present danger and nuisance to people, property and animals. They believe that the suffering that they cause and the cost to emergency services and individuals are totally avoidable. Although they believe this, they do not wish to prevent the enjoyment of traditional festivals; therefore the petitioners request that the House of Commons brings in legislation so that
	1. Fireworks are restricted to licensed displays only at fixed times of the year
	2. To include garden fireworks in the restricted category
	3. To reduce the decibel limit to a maximum of 85 db for all fireworks
	4. To make it illegal to use or possess fireworks without a valid licence."
	 To lie upon the Table.

HOUSING (GATESHEAD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Jonathan Shaw.]

David Anderson: It would be impossible to have any debate on social housing without recognising the fact that we have spent the past 30 years in a state of upheaval. Social housing has been in constant flux. At the same time, there has been massive change in the social attitudes and needs of the people of our country. We have seen the evolutionof one-parent families, the development of single occupancy and the breakdown of traditional family frameworks. At the same time, we have seen the sell-off of social housing and the sad failure to match demand with adequate supply. We have seen the development of various forms of public ownership and private ownership, which has led to serious political differences right across the board.
	I should not have to ask whether our attention has been diverted from the real task of providing good-quality affordable homes for people to live in while we have been discussing the ownership of those homes. It is against that background that I want to bring some good news to the House. In Gateshead, the borough in which my constituency lies, the council still has strategic responsibility for housing. However, in 2004 it set up a housing company as an arm's length management organisation—an ALMO—which has responsibility for housing offices, neighbourhood relations, rent and income, leasehold services, refurbishments, of which there are many good examples, repairs, maintenance and other housing management services.
	With a great big agenda that included spending a quarter of a billion pounds to improve the houses of the people of Gateshead, why has the council produced the Gateshead young persons' housing plan? There are three reasons: first, it is absolutely the right thing to do; secondly, the council was instructed by the Audit Commission that if it wanted to improve from a two-star to a three-star ALMO, it would have to do much more work with that age group; and, thirdly, the plan is in line with a Government-driven initiative for councils to develop plans for children and young persons.
	The key to the plan is wide liaison and consultation, starting with the company itself. It talked first and foremost to the 1,335 young people aged between 16 and 24 who already held tenancies. It worked with the young women's outreach project, with youth information services and, critically, with the Gateshead youth assembly, positively led by Valerie Ender who is a credit to her region and to the young people she looks after. The company worked with the Connexions team on career progress and with the Gateshead children and young people's partnership and the teenage parents partnership. It worked with Gateshead college, the Hit Squad and Skills for People—young disabled persons' groups—and the learning support group at Gateshead college, which also supports disabled people. The black and minority ethnic forum was involved, as were the Gateshead Bangladeshi and Muslim societies; and most importantly, the company worked with the Gateshead youth offending team.
	Between them, those organisations developed a vision:
	"Working with young people to provide excellent homes, communities and housing services for the tenants of tomorrow."
	That vision was based on values that were customer-focused, innovative and professional. The company involves customers in all its work; it is honest, accountable and transparent and shows respect and care for the people for whom and with whom it works.
	A massive commitment has been made to the organisation's employees; they are involved and their work is celebrated. The company is positive and responsive and tries its best at all times to achieve the very best for the people for whom it works. Its employees are well motivated, well trained and committed. As a listening and learning organisation, the company embraces equality and involves the whole community.
	The aim of the plan is clear: to improve the chances of young people in Gateshead and allow them to find out about living on their own. A key part of that process is that young people actually work for the company. The company makes it easy for young people to work with it and to join its board—an issue to which I shall be happy to return later.
	The important thing is to work with young people on the ground and find out who they are. About 46,000 people in Gateshead are aged under 19 and 29,000 of them are of school age. Fifty-nine per cent. of young people said that improved housing would make their lives and neighbourhoods better. Ninety per cent. of children born in Gateshead live in a house or bungalow, but 12 per cent. of them are likely to be living in overcrowded conditions. Five per cent. of young people have a health problem or disability. Almost 2.5 per cent. of them are from an ethnic minority background.
	There is positive news for young people in Gateshead. Youth crime has fallen for the past three years. Only 8 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-olds are unemployed or not in further education or training; that is too many, but we are working on it. Our GCSE results are among the top 10 in the country and the improvements since 1997 mean that we are among the best—a massive plus for the children and those who care for them. The percentage of young people leaving school at 16 with no qualifications has gone down from 8 per cent. in 2001 to 4.5 per cent. in 2005. Under-18 pregnancy rates are down by 22 per cent., and that is the biggest reduction in the north-east; it is far better than the national average drop of 11 per cent.
	The situation is not perfect, although hon. Members might think so, given the way in which I have spoken. Local young people face problems, as do young people across the country. Some face issues of homelessness or rooflessness; some do not have enough money coming in; some have poor or no credit ratings, or have no bank account. They may face unemployment and low pay. They have to abide by the housing benefit rules for under-25s, and they may not know how to use housing services or get help. Rents are very high in the private sector, and young people may have no furniture, may never have lived independently before, and may have absolutely no experience of being a tenant.
	The Gateshead Housing Company went deeper in its work with young people. In February and March of this year, it consulted widely with various groups of young people, who realised that the key issue was that they needed more information and guidance. To provide that information and guidance, the housing company committed itself to promoting more effectively the housing services available directly to young people. It agreed to provide appropriate information as and when it was needed, so that young people could make informed decisions when considering where to live. It also agreed to improve access to information and advice about housing services, and as part of that, it developed a multilingual service, and a service for people with sight impairments.
	The housing company has provided a great deal of help and support. It realises that maintaining a tenancy is not easy, particularly for young people, who may never have faced that worry before. The accessible information has now been provided, and people are using it. A key part of the process is the MyPad website, which is advertised on the card that I have in my hand. It is a website for, and developed by, young people; they are responsible for it, and it provides access to information.
	More than 80 per cent. of young people clearly said that it would help them if they had access to IT services, so that they could find out more. The housing company has responded to that positively. There is a clear need to work with other agencies, including those that I listed earlier. Such work is being developed, and the housing company is taking that seriously. It is identifying individuals who will be the key persons working with its partners, so that there is no blurring of who does what.
	There is a clear problem with housing, and thereis a lack of both permanent and temporary accommodation. The sad thing about the company's plan is that it does not provide us with one brick, one key to a door, or one extra house; however, it does give shape to what must be done. It is accepted that waiting lists are too long, and that it takes too long to get a property. It is accepted that not enough council accommodation is available in the areas where young people want to live. Young people who are offered accommodation often find that it is outside the areas where they want to live, which means that they will be away from their family and their support network. There is a lack of emergency accommodation for young people, too. Some of the housing stock is not at its best, although we are in the middle of a massive refurbishment programme. On some estates, the paintwork on houses is in poor condition. Problem neighbours are a concern for young people, too, and the repair service is perceived to carry out poor quality repairs, and to take too long to complete them.
	A key question put to the young people was, "What do you want?" Their answers were clear, and they made simple but important points. They wanted to live in houses on estates and in communities where they felt safe and secure, and they wanted to live in a clean house in a clean area. They wanted to live in a house that had been improved, and that was furnished. They want more options—they do not want to be pushed into a place and to be given Hobson's choice, but want a real choice. They want places to be open at hours that are helpful to them. They want services to be available not when they are at work or in education, but when they need them. They also want a new letting system, because the previous system, which was based on points, was hard to use and to understand. They need more information on the whole agenda, too.
	I have set out the background of the problems that the housing company faces. It has set up a plan to show how, over the next three years, it will fulfil its commitment and deliver on the agenda that the young people have set. I now turn to what the company has done. It says that it will concentrate on young persons' issues first, and it has appointed a lead officer who will develop young people's priorities. That will ensure that the company complies with the key age discrimination legislation. It will regularly scrutinise young people's services to make sure that people are satisfied with them, and it will listen to their complaints.
	Young people are encouraged to join the company both as employees and as officers who run the company, thus giving them a democratic say in the shaping of the future for themselves and for other people living in Gateshead. We need to find out what problems prevent young people from using the company's service and try to solve them. A taskforce must be given the job of identifying any barrier that young people face when accessing the service. We must ensure that company employees have the required information so that they can provide advice tailored to young people's needs, which are different from those of the rest of the population. Advice and information about housing services in Gateshead must be accessible. As I said before, a web-based housing information resource has been developed, based on the needs of the young people concerned, and it has had an extremely positive effect in promoting available housing.
	Young people have been encouraged to take part in training so that we can learn about what they need. Their views are paramount. Support is always available so that they can become involved, and dedicated training is resourced directly from the housing company budget. The company is keen to work with Connexions—the careers organisation for young people in the north-east—the council, young people's support organisations and groups to improve things for young people in the area. We must make sure that the company's representatives are involved at every level with various organisations so that people's needs are heard loud and clear and are addressed.
	Finally, the company has made sure that the employment of young people is a positive thing. Working for the company should be a positive goal and career step for people leaving university and school. The company's recruiting practices are very much targeted on a young work force. That approach is unique in its detail—if not unique among all housing providers, certainly among arm's length management organisations. We should share good practice. Most of us who have been involved in public services and politics for years have been to thousands of meetings at which we said that we should share good practice, only to go away and forget all about it. The truth is, the company provides an example of good practice, and it is the way forward. We should take it on board and develop it.
	When the housing company is contacted by a young person, it asks them whether they are sure that they want to rent social housing. Many young people think that all they need to do is find the rent—they are not aware of the reality of running a home. They could therefore take the wrong step, so the company works with other organisations, and asks young people whether it can help them to stay at home. Are there family breakdowns at home, or are there financial problems? It tries to help them in different ways. I have been scratching my head, because I cannot imagine another company telling someone not to take their product. A company selling new cars would not suggest that someone take the bus or use their bike. The housing company, however, has a genuine interest in helping younger people.
	The three-year programme will be reviewed annually, with the Gateshead youth assembly playing a key role. Hopefully, the lessons that are learned will be put to good use. I hope that the Minister will agree to come to Gateshead so that she can see what is going on. Hopefully, Ministers will learn from the project and share that knowledge with everyone, as I am trying to do tonight. I am proud to report that the latest member of the ALMO board is a 25-year-old by the name of Christian Jules Siassia, who was appointed this week. Six years ago, he came to the UK as an asylum seeker. He finally got refugee status in 2004. He is a member of the company's black and minority ethnic housing forum. He is working as a housing professional in Newcastle—as a trainee housing officer—and he is now on the board. If that is not the sort of thing that we should welcome, I do not know what is.
	I never believed in John Major's world, where people played cricket and drank warm beer. I came from a world like you did, Mr. Speaker: an industrial background, where we lived back-to-back. I was10 years old before we had a house with a bath in it and an inside toilet. I come from the generation that saw council housing as a liberating factor. We were proud of the strides that my Government and my party took post-war to build council houses—to make council housing and social housing a byword for quality, security and safety. I hope that developments and programmes of the sort that I have been talking about can bring about a new start for us in delivering quality social housing, so that the phrases "council house" and "council estates" are not synonymous with sink estates and second-class housing, but are a genuine positive option—not only for the young people of today, but for everybody.

Sharon Hodgson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) highlighted, there have been substantial changes in the demand for, and supply of, social housing in Gateshead, and it is welcome that changes are being made to reflect that. I join him in asking Ministers to come and view the wonderful work in progress; I assure them that they would be made very welcome in Gateshead.
	In the current climate of rising house prices, there are young people across the country who are worrying about how they will ever manage to get a foot on the property ladder. That is a daunting prospect for people to have to face in their late teens or early 20s, and I support the work done by Gateshead council in trying to make this step easier for our young people. It is significant that such a wide-ranging consultation took place, including all of the 1,335 young tenants already in place in Gateshead Housing Company homes, to ensure that the voice of every young person was heard. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the hard work and dedication of those involved.
	As always, we in the north-east have some real advantages and resources that we can draw on to help our young people get a good start in life. As always, there are also issues to be overcome such as overcrowding, low pay, lack of furniture and all the challenges of setting up home independently.
	The consultation process revealed that young people want just the same things as anyone else: a warm, safe home. It was also noted that the council services needed to be provided in a more flexible manner, and that information needed to be made more easily available and accessible. As a result of those demands, we now have the website, www.mypadgateshead.co.uk, which is taking forward the work of the housing company into the 21st century. I hope that we can continue to close the information gap, which makes young people feel left out of the loop about the choices and options that are available to them.
	In Gateshead, we already have some of the most improving schools in the country, with this year's GCSE results showing Gateshead schools to be the most improved in Britain. We are managing to provide our schoolchildren with the best possible start in life, and this initiative will help to ensure that we continue to provide our young people with every opportunity to do their best for their future for many years to come, and for that future to be in a home in Gateshead.

Meg Munn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) on raising this important issue and I am grateful for the welcome given to the work by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead,East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). The Government always like to hear good news, and we were given a very impressive list of the work that has been undertaken so far and the work that is promised in Gateshead.
	A decent home for everyone is a key Government policy. That is set out in the 2005 "Sustainable Communities: Homes for all" statement. Our vision of sustainable communities is to provide places that offer everyone a decent home that they can afford, in a community in which they want to live and work, both now and in the future. We appreciate that increasing property values and rents, together with a shortage of affordable homes, have made things difficult for everyone setting foot on the housing ladder for the first time, but for many—
	 It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Meg Munn: For many of our young and more vulnerable people, the problems can be daunting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon described very well. To set up on their own with limited knowledge, money or assistance is a frightening and bewildering prospect for many young people. It could be that family problems have forced them into a world of tenancies, leases, rent and responsibilities for which they are ill-prepared. Low wages, unemployment, the lack of a bank account, no credit history—all can make that situation much more difficult. If we fail our young people, they may end up homeless and, as such, much more likely to fall victim to a vicious spiral of crime, drugs and perhaps even violence.
	In the 2002 report "Reducing Re-offending by Ex-Prisoners", the social exclusion unit found that the presence of stable accommodation for young people can mean a reduction of more than 20 per cent. in the reoffending rate. Everyone has a right to a decent home, and the Government want everyone to be given the help and advice needed to make a good start. So we are allocating more than £80 million to local authorities over the next two years to invest in further homelessness prevention schemes; such schemes have already demonstrated considerable success.
	As well as dealing with people who are homeless, we must work to help people to avoid becoming homeless. There needs to be co-ordinated working between children's services and housing services to address young people's specific needs, as they often go beyond housing needs alone. Young people are particularly vulnerable if they do not have help and support in establishing a structured lifestyle. I commend the work being done in Gateshead on this issue.
	My hon. Friend described how the organisation's first step is to question the young person to see whether this is the right step for them, and whether there is a better alternative. He might not know that I used to be a social worker. I worked with young people who often did not have an alternative, and I saw first hand how they would struggle in a new tenancy to deal with issues that, frankly, had never occurred to them. They wanted their own space, which is understandable, but they often found that dealing with loneliness—let alone the problems associated with paying bills—could become simply too much. Many young people struggle to sustain that first tenancy, so my hon. Friend was right to identify this issue.
	On housing provision, which my hon. Friend also rightly raised, we are working to achieve the decent home targets in the public and private sectors. We have invested more than £20 billion of public money in improving council housing since 1997, and more than £40 billion will have been invested by 2010. Since 1997, we have also levered in an additional £7.4 billion through borrowing by housing associations. We have increased the number of decent social homes by over 1 million, and increased the proportion of vulnerable households in the private sector who have a decent home to 66 per cent. We continue to seek ways of delivering more affordable housing and of increasing the building rate for new homes. There is a great deal more to do, but we have to do more than just deal with the physical fabric. Everyone, regardless of age or background, has a right to a decent, safe and secure home. It was no surprise to hear from my hon. Friend that young people raised these issues when they were asked what they wanted from their accommodation.
	The Government recognise that a stable home isa key factor in helping to create a sustainable community, and that it provides stability, security and safety. We are working to create sustainable communities in which everyone has respect for others and is respected. If we want young people to develop respect for others, we have to respect them and help them to respect themselves by guiding them in their first steps to developing a secure home.
	We emphasise the need for consultation and community involvement in housing matters, but we must not forget the views of those who are not yet part of the housing market. It can be hard to draw out the wishes of young people, especially those for whom housing is a new thing—something that they have not previously discovered. Any efforts to be innovative in dealing with the housing needs of young people are to be welcomed. That is why I commend the excellent Gateshead strategy that my hon. Friend has made the centrepiece of his Adjournment debate. I am pleased that Gateshead has taken the initiative in addressing the housing needs of young people by consulting them thoroughly in the preparation of the housing plan.
	It is an important fact in delivering public services that if we talk to people about how those services should be delivered, generally the service is much better. Just because the service users are younger than a great many other users does not mean that they should not be consulted. What is impressive about this approach is that a great deal of thought has been put into finding out the views and opinions of lots of young people from different backgrounds and different ethnic backgrounds, and of young people with disabilities. The plan is comprehensive and enables Gateshead to go forward confidently.
	As my hon. Friend said, the Gateshead Housing Company is the two-star arm's length management organisation that manages Gateshead council's homes. It is notable that in its inspection, it was viewed as having good prospects for taking those further steps. The development of this kind of plan is evidence of that. Together with the council, it is working proactively and is spending more than £1 million a week on improving homes. In particular, I commend its excellent website, as both my hon. Friends have rightly done. I had a quick look at it myself yesterday and found that it was easy to navigate. The address www.mypadgateshead.co.uk is helpful and user-friendly. If you ever find yourself with a moment to spare at your computer, Mr. Speaker, you too will find that that website is well worth a visit.
	Our newly published White Paper "Strong and Prosperous Communities" will further enhance the quality and responsiveness of local services. It offers a future in which communities, including young people, will be empowered to have more control over services, getting better information and being more engaged in shaping the places where they live. We have established regional housing boards in the English regions that have already shown an ability to address strategic and local issues in a more direct and responsive manner. We are also encouraging local authorities to co-operate in the production of costed, prioritised sub-regional housing strategies that will identify the key areas where spending will be focused. The Government are moving to provide more long-term certainty over funding by allocating funds to regions over a three-year period.
	The scale of the issues that need to be addressed by regional housing boards is daunting, so it is essential that effective partnerships are established to draw in and harness private sector funding and support. We need to be flexible and innovative in our approach and to develop effective new ways of working. That essentially means that we need to increase house building rates and address the vexed issue of stock renewal. We need to improve and maintain the quality of existing stock by achieving and going beyond the decent homes target and we need to meet specific community and social needs, particularly among vulnerable groups.
	In the north-east in particular, we need to ensure that we can improve the quality of housing on offer by a balance of new building, repair and replacement. We must ensure that a suitable range of types and sizes of property is provided, based on a clear understanding of local needs and aspirations. That is why the Government have emphasised the importance of robust and up-to-date housing market assessments in the preparation of housing strategies.
	It is too simple to think of the solution to housing problems as being achieved simply by building more new homes. Examining the whole stock is an important approach to take the work forward. We need to understand how the market is working in areas, as well as population changes and migration. We need to know more about the quality of existing stock and, above all, we need to understand the needs and aspirations of householders—both existing householders and those to come. Gateshead has thus done considerable work by examining the aspirations of young people. Some of those young people might not become householders for a considerable time, but such planning for the future is enormously important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon asked something of Ministers, which is always a good reason to apply for an Adjournment debate. On this occasion, it will not be too difficult to give him the response that he wants. He asked whether I would make a visit. The work is very impressive, so I give a commitment that a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government will visit Gateshead to learn about what is going on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that spreading good practice is important, so it is useful if Ministers are able to see such practice for themselves. A Minister from the Department will thus make a visit as soon as that is possible.
	I am sure that that Minister will want to meet the newest member of the board. Again, it is impressive that Gateshead not only asked young people what they wanted on one occasion, but is ensuring that the voice of young people is part of the ongoing work and management by having a young person on the board. Such practice is to be commended and the Government would certainly welcome it being followed elsewhere.
	I once again commend both my hon. Friends for their support for the work. I congratulate Gateshead on producing the report, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon for giving me the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.